To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
This is the latest in the series of biweekly mailings that we started in September, linking to recent articles on HAW-relevant topics, either written by historians or written by others but providing historical background. Suggestions can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. The working group for this project consists of Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, and Sarah Shields.
"Replacing International Oppression with International Aid" http://www.hnn.us/articles/122494.html By Lawrence S. Wittner, History News Network, posted January 25 The author teaches history at SUNY Albany (not Vassar College, as was mistakenly stated in our last mailing)
"George Clooney's Haiti -- and Beyond" http://www.newpol.org/node/205 by Jesse Lemisch,New Politics web site, posted January 23
The author formerly taught history at John Jay College and, before that, the University of Chicago and SUNY Buffalo
Here are a couple of notes related to Historians Against the War:
1. A special page has been set up on the HAW web site for members and friends of HAW to share memories of Howard Zinn, the activist historian whose death on January 27 has saddened a great many of us. The memorials posted so far are at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/zinn/. We invite you to add your own memories to this page; send to Marc Becker (marc@yachana.org).
2. We've extended (to February 9) the deadline for cadidacies for the HAW Steering Committee. (Currently there are 18 candidates for the 20 slots on the committee.) To nominate either yourself or somebody else, you can either reply to this message (use "Reply" instead of "Reply to All") or write to either of the current co-chairs, Jim O'Brien (jimobrien48@gmail.com) or Marc Becker (marc@yachana.org). If you are nominating yourself, please use the following template.
Members and friends of Historians Against the War,
For those who have not already heard, we are very sorry to pass along the news that Howard Zinn died today of a heart attack while visiting in California. He was 87. There will undoubtedly be many stories in coming days, but the following is one that appeared this evening in the on-line Boston Globe, with basic information and a number of quotes.
Howard was a near-icon among anti-war historians, and HAW was proud to have him as a keynote speaker at our first national conference, in Austin, Texas in February 2006. We join his legion of friends and admirers worldwide who will miss his eloquent and principled voice.
[haw-info] HAW Notes (with links to recent articles of interest)
To members and friends of Historians Against the War
Here are some notes, followed by our biweekly set of links to history-related articles on HAW-relevant topics.
1.Talks given at the HAW panel at this year's AHA convention ("Obama's Troubling First Year: What Went Wrong, and What Can Historians Do About It?") have been posted on the HAW web site, at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/aha10.They include the introduction to the panel by Andor Skotnes and talks by Nelson Lichtenstein and Margaret Power.
2.Mike Zweig of U.S. Labor Against the War has made a partly historical video entitled "Why Are We in Afghanistan."The 27-minute video can be seen at http://www.WhyAreWeInAfghanistan.org, and this web page also has ordering information.
3.The Radical History Review has issued a call for proposals for a special issue on "Historicizing 9/11," focusing on ways in which the September 11, 2001 events have been rendered as history.The issue will include a section on experiences of people who have taught about these events at the college or K-12 levels. The call for proposals is at http://chnm.gmu.edu/rhr/calls.htm; the deadline is February 15.
Links to Recent Articles of Interest
"No Exit: America Has an Impressive Record of Starting Wars but a Dismal One of Ending Them Well"
[haw-info] call for candidates for the HAW Steering Committee
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
In a few weeks we will conduct e-mail voting for members of the HAW Steering Committee. The Steering Committee, elected once a year, makes decisions for HAW in between the annual meetings at the AHA. Aside from one face-to-face meeting in the summer, the SC conducts business through e-mail and occasional conference calls.
Eligibility to run, and to vote, will depend on being a member of HAW at the time of the actual election. (See below.)
If you would like to run (and we encourage you to consider it) or if you would like to nominate someone, let us know.
If you are nominating yourself, please send a brief description, using the template at the end of this message, by January 25 to either of the current co-chairs (addresses are below). If you are nominating someone else, please send us the name and e-mail address sooner so we can contact them and see if they are willing.
If you have any questions, feel free to write to either of us with questions.
* Last spring HAW (by a referendum vote of 196-14) adopted a new defining statement, with the specification that membership would now be open to anyone who is in "substantial agreement" (self-defined) with the statement and wants to be considered a member. The statement, and an on-line form for joining, are on the HAW home page at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/statement.html. A list of people currently registered as members is at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/aha10/members.html.
This morning over breakfast I am watching reports about the battle in Kabul on CNN International. I have no way of knowing what is really happening, which reports are true, exaggerated, or misleading. I am not accusing CNN of anything, nor praising them. But the resemblance to discourses surrounding the Vietnam war is striking, despite the evidence that this is, at least in scale, nothing on the order of the spring, 1968 Tet offensive, involving only a few dozen Taliban at most.
- One reporter speaking live from Kabul made the point that the Taliban has shown that it can go on the offensive in Kabul and penetrate deep into the capital and secured areas. This is precisely the claim made during and after Tet. The U.S. military claimed, quite plausibly, that they had won the battle militarily (and that will probably be the case this time as well). They thwarted all attacks and the Vietcong made no permanent gains. But it was the demonstration of offensive capability, after months of U.S. military claims that they were winning and breaking the Vietcong, that supposedly turned Tet into communist/nationalist victory. Thus, according to the mainstream American narrative, the media turned a military victory into a military defeat by interpreting it as a defeat (for example in this blog story about media coverage).
- There are vague and speculative reports on CNN about where the Taliban penetrated and how far they got in. How far into the presidential compound did they get? How many layers of security did they penetrate? This sounds exactly like discussions about how many Vietcong got into the U.S. embassy compound and how far into the compound they got (how many meters beyond the wall, whether they got into the building, if so which story they reached, etc.). Together with coverage of the My Lai massacre, reports from the media which exaggerated Vietcong successes in the U.S. embassy in Saigon are now the centerpiece of claims that the U.S. media lost the war for the United States and the Republic of South Vietnam, for example in the 1984 documentary, Vietnam War - The Impact of the Media, hosted by Charlton Heston.
I returned from Haiti just a couple of days before a powerful earthquake rocked the country on January 12. I was in Haiti on a solidarity delegation to document human rights abuses by the United Nations Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) and to observe preparations for February's legislative elections. Other members of the HAW Steering Committee encouraged me to share my thoughts with the broader HAW membership and friends on the historical background to this catastrophe.
Many people have observed that the Haitian earthquake was more a political disaster than a natural one. The similarly powerful 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in California killed 63 people, while the death toll in Haiti appears as if it may soar over 100,000. Our experiences in the country confirmed that the solution to Haiti's problem is political in nature.
Two hundred some years ago Haiti was the richest colony in the world, but today it is the poorest and most unequal country in the Americas. A successful slave revolt in 1804 defeated the French planter class, but the only other independent country in the Americas, the United States, refused to welcome a Black Republic because of the powerful example it set for marginalized and oppressed people everywhere. The French demanded a 150 million franc payment from the Haitians for losing their prized pearl of the Antilles. Haiti made the payment, strangling any possibility for development, and sacrificing its future so as not to be seen as an international pariah.
In Haiti, we heard from grassroots activists who complained that large international aid agencies collect funds for administrative salaries, vehicles, and office support, but little of this money filters down to the people who need it the most. Dumping cheap rice on the country has destroyed the local agricultural economy. Haiti has a desperate short-term need for assistance, but this aid must be funneled through groups like Doctors Without Borders (http://doctorswithoutborders.org/) and Partners in Health (http://www.pih.org/) that have a track record and distribution networks necessary in place to make proper use of the aid.
The longer term solution, however, is political. Already conservative pundits are proclaiming that the earthquake is an opportunity to remake the country along neoliberal lines. But the extraction of natural resources, creation of low-wage jobs, and privatization of government functions are factors that have left Haiti incapable of responding to a natural disaster.
Haiti has never recovered from the ostracization it faced from the French and United States governments at independence, and ongoing international policies appear to be designed to sink the country deeper into debt. The U.S. marines occupied the country from 1915 to 1934, and the earthquake seems to provide a convenient excuse for the United States once again to land military troops and reassert its imperial control over the country.
In 2004, the French, United States, and Canadian governments removed popular leftist president Jean Bertrand Aristide who promised to shift resources to the most marginalized sectors of society. They have insisted that the current government ban his Fanmi Lavalas, the largest political party in Haiti, from participating in electoral contests.
The solution to Haiti's problems is to allow the country to develop its own economy and political system without constant outside intervention. Otherwise, Haiti's next natural calamity will be worse than this one, and the country will continue to sink deeper into poverty,inequality, and social exclusion.
Marc Becker Associate Professor of Latin American History Truman State University
More information is available on his website http://www.yachana.org/reports/haiti/. For more in depth information on the historical background and current events in Haiti, see:
C. L. R. James, The Black Jacobins; Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, 2d rev ed. (New York: Vintage Books, 1963).
Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Amy Wilentz, In the parish of the poor: Writings from Haiti (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1990).
Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Laura Flynn, Eyes of the heart: Seeking a path for the poor in the age of globalization (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2000).
David Patrick Geggus, Haitian revolutionary studies, Blacks in the diaspora (Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 2002).
Garry Wills, "Negro president" Jefferson and the slave power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003).
Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, Haiti: the breached citadel, Rev. and updated ed. (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2004).
Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The story of the Haitian Revolution (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004).
Laurent Dubois and John D. Garrigus, ed., Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 1789-1804: A brief history with documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston, MA ; New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006).
Paul Farmer, The Uses of Haiti, 3rd ed. (Monroe, Me: Common Courage Press, 2006).
Randall Robinson, An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, from revolution to the kidnapping of a president (New York: Basic Civitas, 2008).
David Patrick Geggus and Norman Fiering, ed., The World of the Haitian Revolution, Blacks in the diaspora (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009).
[haw-info] HAW Notes (including links to recent articles of interest)
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
Here are some notes, followed by the latest in our biweekly set of links to history-related articles on HAW-relevant topics.
1.For those attending the AHA convention later this week, this is a reminder of the HAW panel and discussion at 5:00 – 6:30 pm Saturday, on "Obama's Troubling First Year: What Went Wrong and What Can Historians Do About It?" It is in the secondary convention hotel, the San Diego Marriott, in the New York and Orlando Rooms.
2.The following scholars have accepted invitations to join a newly constituted Advisory Board for Historians Against the War:Manan Ahmed, Chris Appy, Cemil Aydin, Magnus Bernhardsson, Frank Costigliola, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Irene Gendzier, Marvin Gettleman, Joan Hoff, Marilyn Young, Rashid Khalidi, Peter Kuznick, Vinay Lal, Mark LeVine, Zachary Lockman, Ellen Schrecker, Martin Sherwin, Barbara Weinstein, and Lawrence Wittner.
Links to Recent Articles of Interest
"Serial Catastrophes in Afghanistan Threaten Obama Policy"
The author teaches history and government at the University of Arizona
Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, and Sarah Shields.
I posted the following comments in response and wanted to publish those remarks here as well:
Some points:
- I am a member of the SC and yet somehow I am not opposed to libertarians.
- The "many" libertarians who joined HAW are apparently not numerous enough to vote anyone onto the SC. I would encourage libertarians to run for leadership positions and steer the organization in a direction they want. Elections are this month. There are twenty leadership seats to be had. If anyone thinks we're a "left-wing social club," then mobilize! That would be more effective than un-libertarian portrayals of discrimination and one's own victimhood.
- There are numerous "libertarian" posts on the blog. They went on for months and outnumber anything "progressive" on the blog. If ideology were the reason for stopping the two libertarians from posting, then that is indeed a mysterious anomaly. It is interesting that David's article here does not include our main complaint against him in his list of "main complaints against us." It goes unmentioned - not even to deny it or refute it. Read versions of what happened from both sides in the comments to posts at the HAWblog made in March of 2009, especially at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/blog/2009/03/haw-info-draft-of-haw-statement.html#links. The whole blog issue was very unfortunate and I don't think either side played its cards right in the dispute that flared up last spring. The HAWblog is now admittedly rather stagnant. But it simply isn't the case that the HAW leadership suddenly moved to banish libertarianism and conduct a purge.
- The "blogroll" at the HAWblog has links to several libertarian or libertarian-friendly sources. They were put there on the initiative of David Beito. That is all the more evidence that participation is possible. If someone like David Beito were on the steering committee, even more would happen.
- The word "progressive" in the subtitle on a poster announcing a panel is not a core statement of ideology. Furthermore, the word progressive is followed by the phrase "and historically minded activists." Pouncing on this one word - an ambiguous word - and on a particular blog post is rather odd. It gives the impression that some people need HAW to be a left-wing whipping boy.
- A close reading of the new statement (and as historians, that is how we read documents) shows that it is not a "leftist critique of global capitalism." It expresses hope that the "crisis of global capitalism" - an undeniable fact in the spring of 2009 - not lead to more war and be paid for by the little guy. It does not advocate statist solutions (nor market solutions for that matter). Indeed, the call to not solve the crisis on the backs of the little guy seems very compatible with libertarianism to me. Ron Paul would not favor bailing out the fat cats or seizing resources abroad or some form of Keynesian military spending.
- Membership in HAW does not require signing on to a neo-Marxist agenda. It does not even require total agreement with the new statement - only "substantial agreement." During steering committee votes on the statement, I abstained because of the ambiguous "capitalism" clause. Nonetheless, I can get on board with the general theme. I know of at least one other HAW member who had strong objections to a particular clause (a different one) and yet signed anyway.
If people want to break with HAW because they do not feel it represents them, that is okay. We can go after militarism from different angles. The black-square bishop and the white-square bishop never meet, but can cooperate in checkmate. I think a case can be made that HAW is more "ecumenical" than portrayed in this article, however.
Edited to add: Another attack on HAW has been published at antiwar.com.
The 2006 film clearly put the individual actions of the passengers into the wider context of the "war on terror," assigning them roles parallel to their nations' policies. The Americans play the courageous ones willing to risk all to fight for what is right while Europe stands by passively, hoping everything will work out in the end, pretending that evil isn't real and that negotiation and appeasement are the best approach. Films based on real historical events always have an artistic element to them. They have to fill in the gaps, make up scenes and dialogue. The best they can hope for is to not contradict known facts. United 93 went beyond that, contributing actively and intentionally to a particular narrative and American self-portrayal. On Christmas day 2009 Jasper Schuringa, a Dutch film director no less (not only an appeasing European, but part of the "liberal media elite" no less!) put a lie to stereotypes.
This is the eighth in our biweekly series of links to articles of interest on HAW-related topics. Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, and Sarah Shields
"New War Order: How Panama Set the Course for Post-Cold War Foreign Policy"
http://amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00022/ By Ted Galen Carpenter,American Conservative, February 1, 2010 issue
"Grinding Down the U.S. Army"
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175178 By William Astore, TomDispatch.com, posted December 15 The author is a retired Air Force colonel who now teaches history at the Pennsylvania College of Technology
"Afghanistan: Mirage of the Good War"
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2713 By Tariq Ali,New Left Review, March-April 2008
This breaks our rules of only recent articles, but one of us ran across this article recently and found that it provides valuable background to today's events.
[haw-info] HAW Steering Committee statements related to the Afghanistan war
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
The HAW Steering Committee has voted to adopt the following two statements related to the war in Afghanistan.
Statement on military resistance:
This statement was submitted by Staughton Lynd and approved by the HAW Steering Committee.Correspondence on it should be sent to another member of the Steering Committee, Carl Mirra, a former military resister and author of Soldiers and Citizens: An Oral History of Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Battlefield to the Pentagon.His e-mail address is carlmirra@aol.com.
Historians Against the War supports soldiers in the United States military who refuse to fight in Afghanistan, either as conscientious objectors or on the grounds that the United States is committing war crimes forbidden by Nuremburg and the Army Field Manual, such as the use of drone aircraft in Pakistan.
Statement on Escalation in Afghanistan
This statement originated in a draft suggested by Herbert Shapiro, emeritus history professor at the University of Cincinnati.It was amended somewhat in discussions within the Steering Committee and adopted.
Historians Against War (HAW) expresses its opposition to the escalation of the Afghanistan War announced by President Obama in his December 1 speech at West Point. One again we are told the United States must increase its commitment of human and material resources in support of a government, steeped in corruption, that fails to demonstrate support of a majority of its country's population.
In his speech, President Obama took issue with any claim that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. The two conflicts are not carbon copies of each other but there are distinct similarities. And if we go on with the Afghan War it may be that we have not fully learned the lessons of Vietnam.
The Vietnamese would not yield to a counter-insurgency that believed sending increasing numbers of troops, dropping more and more napalm upon them, and flying more bombing runs was a formula for victory. They would not yield to a strategy that could not distinguish between soldiers and civilians and pretended that a discredited Saigon regime had the support of the people over whom it ruled.
In Afghanistan we once more follow the path of escalation, inflicting "collateral" damage on a civilian population and propping up a corrupt government. In the present war we once more adopt a "guns not butter" policy, making war while undermining our ability to devote the resources needed to make the economic reforms so urgently needed at home.
Afghanistan's own recent history provides further reason for opposing the Obama administration's current course of action. The Soviet experience of the late 1970s and early 1980s dramatically reinforced Afghanistan's role as the "graveyard of empires." At the same time, U.S. intervention in the form of aid to the most reactionary anti-Soviet forces helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of al-Qaeda.
HAW urges a change in direction. We need an Afghanistan policy that includes a full, early, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. military forces, economic assistance to Afghani civil society, and a relinquishment of any project for permanent U.S. bases.
[haw-info] HAW Notes (including links to recent articles of interest)
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
Here are a few notes, followed by the latest in our series of biweekly mailings of links to article of interest.
1.HAW will have a session (details are still being planned) at the AHA convention in San Diego, Saturday, January 9, at 5:30 – 7:00 pm.It will be in the secondary convention hotel, which is not being boycotted.Margaret Power (power@iit.edu) and Andor Skotnes (skotna@sage.edu) are coordinating plans for the session.
2.Michael Zweig of U.S. Labor Against the War, who has been a strong ally of HAW, is also the coordinator of the How Class Works 2010 conference, June 3-5 at Stony Brook University.The proposals deadline is December 14 and information is at http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/conference/2010/cfp.shtml.
On Lyndon Johnson's decision making on Vietnam in the mid-1960s, using excerpts from President Johnson's taped phone conversations with top advisors.The video of this program can be accessed at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/watch.html
By Thad Russell, The Daily Beast, posted October 17
a broad-brush analysis of the liberal foreign policy tradition
Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, and Sarah Shields
[haw-info] HAW Notes (including links to recent on-line articles of interest)
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
Here are a couple of notes, followed by the sixth in our series of links to recent articles by historians on HAW-relevant topics – or articles by other writers that that provide historical background on these topics.
1. Middle East historian Irene Gendzier, of Boston University, invites anyone interested "in following up the possibility of having a meeting on the subject of the Goldstone Report, or introducing it in the context of other conferences, to contact her at gendzier@bu.edu.
2.The libertarian conservative web site antiwar.com, which has consistently opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and focuses on war- and civil-liberties-related news, has put out a distress signal for donations.Its home page is http://www.antiwar.com.
Links to Recent Articles of Interest
"History Promises Disaster in Afghanistan for Blind America"
Interviewed by Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com, posted November 6
Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, Sarah Shields
[haw-info] Historians Against War: National Call-in Day: No More Troops to Afghanistan !
From: the Steering Committee, Historians Against War
National Call-In Days November 23-25 : No More Troops to Afghanistan!
President Obama is still deciding whether to escalate the US military presence in Afghanistan. He is under intense pressure from the military to step up the war. We need to send a loud and clear message from the American public that this would be a disastrous decision !
For three days people from every corner of the country will be flooding the White House with calls, letting the President know that we oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan and want him to end this war. Historians Against War is joining with the Institute for Policy Studies, American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, CodePink, United for Peace and Justice, Just Foreign Policy and many other national organizations to spread the word.
What you can do:
*On Monday-Wednesday November 23-25 call the White House 202-456-1111 or email though website www.whitehouse.gov/contact and let them know that you oppose further escalation and want a troop withdrawal to begin now.
* Mobilize people on your campus, schools or other places of work to participate in these call-in days. Consider organizing a phone-a-thon at a central location, where people can make these calls or use your personal list-serves to forward this message and ask friends colleagues to do the same.
* Call your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bill HR 3699 -which would deny funding for more troops in Afghanistan. Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121, 202-225-3121
*And please let us know if you are participating in effort.
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
This is the fourth biweekly mailing of links to recent articles by historians on HAW-relevant topics – or articles by other writers that that provide historical background on these.Suggestions for inclusion are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are listed below.
Sincerely,
Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O'Brien, Maia Ramnath, Sarah Shields
[haw-info] "Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?"
This message, reprinting an on-line article by Robert Naiman of the group Just Foreign Policy, is sent at the request of several members of the Historians Against the War (HAW) Steering Committee.
NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?
If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an impact, that time is now.
The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford" to provide every American with quality health care, but every health care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than McChrystal's endless war. A recent CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more troops.
Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.
Top Administration officials share the skepticism. Vice- President Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin, an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at home, for many years.
Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion to move policy.
National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint website noescalation.org, we're posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000 more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to the website noescalation.org.
The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "we're waiting to see what the President decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge. The time to affect the President's decision is obviously before he makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.
Call now. The Norwegians are counting on you.
------------
Supplementary Note by Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg
Robert Naiman underscores the importance of getting members of Congress to speak out NOW against escalating the US military presence in Afghanistan, instead of waiting on the President. At present the strongest vehicle for expressing Congressional dissent is HR 3699, introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee, which would prohibit the use of funds to increase the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan. It presently has a list of 23 co-sponsors: To see the list: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3699.
If you have not already done so, please call the Washington offices of your member of Congress expressing opposition to the proposed troop buildup and asking them to co-sponsor HR 3699. Be sure to inquire where that member of Congress stands on the issue of expanding the war. Any interesting results please post on the website: http://NoEscalation.org and to hiscze@aol.com (for Historians Against the War).
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
This is the fourth biweekly mailing of links to articles that provide historical background on HAW-relevant topics.Suggestions for inclusion are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are listed below.
Here are some notes of possible interest to members and friends of Historians Against the War:
1.A number of well-known antiwar activists have signed onto a statement being circulated by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, calling for an end to US military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan.The statement and a partial list of signers are at http://www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1014/stmt.shtml.
2."John Marciano, a retired historian now living in Santa Monica (and a longtime HAW member), is interested in helping to start an informal discussion group in the Los Angeles area. He can be reached at johnmarciano@mac.com."
3.Middle East historian Irene Gendzier, who has been a featured speaker at several HAW events, wrote to ask us to pass along a link to the web site www.israeli-occupation.org, which she finds valuable.
4.The following is a legislative update from Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg of the HAW Steering Committee:
Congress has nearly completed its work on the 2010 Defense budget with a total of approximately $636 billion in expenditures. This includes $128.2 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite numerous statements from members of Congress, expressing concern about US policy in Afghanistan, only one Senator (Russ Feingold) and a handful of representative in the House have voted against the money. This is a clear and troubling sign of how reluctant antiwar Democrats have become now that President Obama is in the White House.
At present the clearest expressions of Congressional dissent is a new bill HR 3966, introduced by Barbara Lee which would prohibit the use of funds to increase the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan. It presently has a list of 22 co-sponsors: To see the list: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3699
It would be very helpful if historians called the Washington offices of your member of Congress expressing support for HR 3699. If that member has not agreed to be a co-sponsor, it would also be useful to ask why they have not done so. Any interesting results please forward to hiscze@aol.com
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
This is the third biweekly mailing of links to articles that provide historical background on HAW-relevant topics.Suggestions for inclusion are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are listed below.
Sincerely,
Matt Bokovoy,
Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg
Jim O'Brien
Maia Ramnath
Sarah Shields
"Are We the Martians of the Twenty-First Century?"
[haw-info] An Appeal to HAW Members and Supporters
HAW Members and Supporters,
The crisis in Afghanistan is deepening, militaristic circles are calling for the deployment of more US troops, and opposition at home and abroad is growing. HAW stands with this opposition, and is deeply concerned about the effects of an expanded war on the peoples of Afghanistan and the region, and on the struggle for reform at home.
Because of this, we are asking that:
1. If you haven't done so, sign the new HAW Statement, expressing your substantial agreement with its content, and thereby become a full HAW member;
2. Considering making a donation to HAW, so that we can build a treasury for the continuing struggle.
Donations may be made online through Paypal, or be mailed to Historians Against the War, c/o Van Gosse, Department of History, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003. Those donating $40 or more will receive a free copy of HAW's most recent pamphlet, "The Bush-Cheney Years," based on our roundtable at last January's AHA.
[haw-info] call-in day to members of Congress this Wednesday, Sept. 30, against funds for war in Afghanistan
The following message is sent on behalf of legislative coordinator Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg and other members of the Steering Committee of Historians Against the War.
National Call-in Day:No Timeline! No Exit Strategy! Stop the Funding!
Wednesday September 30
Congress Should Vote "No" on 2010 Military Budget! To reach the Washington Switchboard: 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121
Congress is steps away from passing a $625.8 billion 2010 Military Budget, including $128.2 billion to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through September 2010.
So far the White House has offered no timetable and no "exit strategy" for Afghanistan. Instead General McChrystal and other military leaders are pressing for the addition of tens of thousands of new American troops and a commitment to remain in Afghanistan for years to come.
All too evident is the original meaning of "a quagmire"—when every step taken to escalate a war makes it more difficult to leave. At this critical moment, constituents need to send a powerful message to their members of Congress that this dangerous course must be stopped. Our government should adopt an exit strategy from Afghanistan based on all-party talks, regional diplomacy, unconditional humanitarian aid and timelines for the near-term withdrawal of American and NATO combat troops. Congress must stop writing "blank-checks" for continued warfare!
United for Peace and Justice, CODEPINK, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats for America, Just Foreign Policy, AfterDowningStreet and Voters for Peace (list still in formation) believe that a public outcry is vitally important now, when the Generals are pressuring the President and Congress to escalate a costly, humanly destructive and ultimately un-winnable war.
***On September 30 join the National Call-in Day and tell your Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote against the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. When making this call, tell them to stand firmly against escalation and to co-sponsor Congressman James McGovern's H.R. 2404 that would require President Obama to provide an "exit plan" from Afghanistan. For list of co-sponsors:
Growing numbers of Senators and Congressional Representatives have expressed concerns over US policy in Afghanistan. It is hypocritical to publicly raise so many questions, while funding the Pentagon for another year of war.
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
This is the second in a biweekly series of mailings of links to recent articles that provide historical background on HAW-relevant topics. Suggestions for inclusion are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the workinggroup for this project are listed below.
Sincerely,
Matt Bokovoy
Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg
Jim O'Brien
Maia Ramnath
Sarah Shields
"The United States in Afghanistan: Eight Years Later"
To members and friends of Historians Against the War:
1. The Peace History Society (PHS) has arranged with HAW to offer special on-line access to its journal, Peace and Change (including the current special issue on the Iraq War edited by Robert Shaffer). For a 60-day period after registering, you will have free access to any Peace and Change articles.(1) To register, go to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/trial/pcsoc and create a username and password; (2) to access issues of Peace and Change after having registered, go to www.interscience.wiley.com and log in with username and password.(Then click on "Publication Titles" in the Search area and specify Peace and Change.)Information on joining PHS, which includes a subscription to Peace and Change, is at http://www.peacehistorysociety.org/membership.php.Dues are $40/year (or $25/year for students, retirees, or unemployed).
2.The HAW Steering Committee has adopted the following statement regarding the boycott of the January 2010 AHA convention in San Diego:
"In view of the boycott called by some GLBT organizations and UNITE HERE against the Manchester Hyatt in SanDiego, the main convention hotel of the January 2010 AHA convention, the HAW Steering Committee resolves to hold any HAW events in other locations. The Steering Committee also urges individual HAW members and supporters who plan to attend the convention to book rooms in other hotels rather than at the Hyatt and, in general, avoid spending money at the Hyatt."
3.Filmmaker Robert Greenwald's remarkable Rethink Afghanistan project (http://rethinkafghanistan.com) now includes six separate videos of 11 to 14 minutes each, which can be viewed on-line for free.A DVD with all the videos included will be available as of October 5; ordering information, as well as links to the individual videos, is on the web site.
[haw-info] petition for ending the war in Afghanistan
The following statement, initiated by Tom Hayden, is being circulated for additional signatures at http://gopetition.com/online/30533/sign.html.A list of the approximately fifty initial signers can be found on that web page.
Afghanistan - A Petition to Take Action Against the War
We, the undersigned peace and justice leaders, believe that the American military interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are deepening quagmires that threaten a Long War without end.
At the current rate of American deaths in Afghanistan, over 1,000 additional American soldiers will be killed in the next two years of "hard fighting" predicted by the Pentagon as the next phase of a ten year occupation. Another $130 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq now is being rushed through a sleeping Congress. An escalation of even more troops is pending.
Now is the time for an exit strategy to end these wars. The government of warlords, drug lords, and landlords we prop up in Kabul is losing more legitimacy by the day. A majority of Americans - including 70 percent from the majority party - now consider Afghanistan a mistake. Leading national security experts even deny that it's a necessary war.
If we do not decide to disengage at once, our dreams of domestic reform will be squandered by years of war budgets. Our dreams of clean energy will be buried in wars over oil and pipelines. The global good will extended to our new President will be jeopardized.
We understand how difficult it is to reverse a mistaken course. But that is the leadership we need, not one that continually escalates in order not to lose. We have been there.
- Our government should adopt an exit strategy from Afghanistan based on all-party talks, regional diplomacy, unconditional humanitarian aid, and timelines for the near-term withdrawal of American and NATO combat troops.
- The aerial bombardments of Afghan and Pakistan villages, like burning down haystacks to find terrorist needles, should end.
- Military spending should be reversed in Afghanistan to focus on food, medicine, shelter, the socio-economic needs of the poor, and the dignity of women and children.
- President Obama should keep his pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq by 2011, and prevent American interference in the forthcoming Iraqi elections.
- The President should oppose any Israeli attack on Iran, which will only inflame the regional and global conflict.
Much as we were inspired by Barack Obama's election, we will not be taken for granted by the President and the Congressional majority. The historic victories in 2006 and 2008 were fueled by popular enthusiasm and unprecedented voter turnouts that cannot be reignited by e-mail solicitations. A growing disenchantment with a costly quagmire will threaten all the hopes of 2008. Everything is related now: we cannot afford national health care, housing, and clean energy while spending billions on quagmires across several continents.
We are prepared to create a storm of protest in Congressional districts and close Senate races. We will form alliances with all those whose hope for health, energy and economic reform are diminished by these wars. We will defend dissent in the armed forces and protect our children from the snares of military recruiters. We will reach out to strengthen a global peace movement, especially in NATO countries.
History shows that terrorist threats can come from German cities, African villages, and even homegrown American cells, not simply the caves of Pakistan.
Our security needs cannot be served by provoking the growing hatred of America caused by repeated invasions of foreign lands. We are human beings who refuse to be defined in the world as mindless military drones and Predators.
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
On behalf of the HAW Steering Committee, we plan to send a message every two weeks with links to on-line articles that provide historical background on HAW-relevant topics. Suggestions for inclusion are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the working group for this project are listed below.
By Jeremy Kuzmarov, History News Network, posted August 17
In addition, this week's "Life during Wartime" cartoon by Josh Brown, posted on the HAW home page (http://www.historiansagainstwar.org), offers a chilling parallel between Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Afghanistan - A Petition to Take Action Against the War
We, the undersigned peace and justice leaders, believe that the American military interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are deepening quagmires that threaten a Long War without end.
At the current rate of American deaths in Afghanistan, over 1,000 additional American soldiers will be killed in the next two years of "hard fighting" predicted by the Pentagon as the next phase of a ten year occupation. Another $130 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq now is being rushed through a sleeping Congress. An escalation of even more troops is pending.
Now is the time for an exit strategy to end these wars. The government of warlords, drug lords, and landlords we prop up in Kabul is losing more legitimacy by the day. A majority of Americans - including 70 percent from the majority party - now consider Afghanistan a mistake. Leading national security experts even deny that it's a necessary war.
If we do not decide to disengage at once, our dreams of domestic reform will be squandered by years of war budgets. Our dreams of clean energy will be buried in wars over oil and pipelines. The global good will extended to our new President will be jeopardized.
We understand how difficult it is to reverse a mistaken course. But that is the leadership we need, not one that continually escalates in order not to lose. We have been there.
- Our government should adopt an exit strategy from Afghanistan based on all-party talks, regional diplomacy, unconditional humanitarian aid, and timelines for the near-term withdrawal of American and NATO combat troops.
- The aerial bombardments of Afghan and Pakistan villages, like burning down haystacks to find terrorist needles, should end.
- Military spending should be reversed in Afghanistan to focus on food, medicine, shelter, the socio-economic needs of the poor, and the dignity of women and children.
- President Obama should keep his pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq by 2011, and prevent American interference in the forthcoming Iraqi elections.
- The President should oppose any Israeli attack on Iran, which will only inflame the regional and global conflict.
Much as we were inspired by Barack Obama's election, we will not be taken for granted by the President and the Congressional majority. The historic victories in 2006 and 2008 were fueled by popular enthusiasm and unprecedented voter turnouts that cannot be reignited by e-mail solicitations. A growing disenchantment with a costly quagmire will threaten all the hopes of 2008. Everything is related now: we cannot afford national health care, housing, and clean energy while spending billions on quagmires across several continents.
We are prepared to create a storm of protest in Congressional districts and close Senate races. We will form alliances with all those whose hope for health, energy and economic reform are diminished by these wars. We will defend dissent in the armed forces and protect our children from the snares of military recruiters. We will reach out to strengthen a global peace movement, especially in NATO countries.
History shows that terrorist threats can come from German cities, African villages, and even homegrown American cells, not simply the caves of Pakistan.
Our security needs cannot be served by provoking the growing hatred of America caused by repeated invasions of foreign lands. We are human beings who refuse to be defined in the world as mindless military drones and Predators.
TOM HAYDEN ARIEL DORFMAN, Author, Duke University
RABBI STEVEN B. JACOBS, Progressive Faith Foundation REV. GEORGE REGAS, pastor emeritus, All-Saints Episcopal Church REV. ED BACON, Pastor, All-Saints Episcopal Church REV. PETER LAARMAN, Progressive Christians United DR. NAZIR KHAJA, President, Islamic Information Service REV. JOHN B. COBB, Claremont Theology School REV. GEORGE HUNSINGER, Princeton Theology Seminary REV. JAMES CONN, Director, New Ministries, United Methodist Church RABBI HAIM DOV BELIAK, Hamifgash REV. JANET EOLLERY MCKEITHEN, Westside Interfaith Coalition STEPHEN ROHDE, president, Inter-faith Communities for Peace and Justice, Los Angeles
SENATOR JOHN BURTON, chairman, California Democratic Party KAREN BERNAL, chair, Progressive Caucus, California Democratic Party DANIEL ELLSBERG SUSIE SHANNON, Executive Board Member, California Democratic Party RAY MCGOVERN, CIA [ret.] PAUL HAGGIS, film director SONALI KOHATKAR, Co-director, Afghan Women's Mission MICHAEL RATNER, President, Center for Constitutional Rights JODIE EVANS, co-founder, CODE PINK CODE PINK LESLIE CAGAN, co-founder, United for Peace and Justice RUSTI EISENBERG, United for Peace and Justice UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE [UFPJ] KEVIN MARTIN, PEACE ACTION, Washington MICHAEL MCPHEARSON, Veterans for Peace ROBERT NAIMAN, policy director, JUST FOREIGN POLICY
STAUGHTON LYND, historian VAN GOSSE, co-founder, Historians Against the War MARC BECKER, co-chair, Historians Against the War MICHAEL ALBERT, Znet BILL FLETCHER, Jr., executive director, Black Commentator, co-founder Progressives for Obama CARL DAVIDSON, webmaster, PROGRESSIVES FOR OBAMA RICHARD FALK, professor, Princeton University, United Nations rapporteur LEONARD WEINGLASS, human rights attorney MATTHEW EVANGELISTA, chair, Department of Government, Cornell University STANLEY ARONOWITZ, graduate center, City University of New York JOE FEAGAN, professor, Texas A&M University
ROBERT GREENWALD, Brave New Films GAEL MURPHY, Code Pink, Washington TIM CARPENTER, Progressive Democrats of America [PDA] NORMAN BIRNBAUM DAVID FENTON
The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part 6 of Rethink Afghanistan, Security, brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents to explain why. There is no "victory" to be won in Afghanistan. It is the most important video about U.S. Security today.
The following message is sent on behalf of Margaret Power, a Latin American historian and a former co-chair (and a current Steering Committee member) of Historians Against the War.We realize that for most people receiving this message, it will come too late for the petition deadline but we hope it will provide information on the repression faced by fellow historians in Honduras.
Dear Friends:
We just received this urgent message about Professor Dario Euraque from Kevin Coleman, a HAW member.Unfortunately, the time to act is not much: until 10:00 am today, Tuesday, August 25th.So, please read the explanatory letter below and, if you can, sign the petition.
Thank you,
Margaret Power
Dear Colleagues,
I write to you from the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History requesting that you sign the petition below in support of Professor Darío A. Euraque, who has just been illegally dismissed by the coup government in Honduras.
By noon Tuesday, I will submit the signed petition to the American Historical Association's Conference of Latin American History executive committee.I will also it send to the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa. A translated version of this petition will also be presented to the Honduran media.
Please distribute as widely and as quickly as possible to our professional organizations and universities. Please send all signatures to me (kecolema@indiana.edu) by 10 AM on Tuesday, June 25th. Thank you so much for your support. Best wishes,
Kevin Coleman
Doctoral Candidate in History
Indiana University, Bloomington
Petition of Support for Professor Darío A. Euraque: Illegally dismissed by Coup Government in Honduras
The undersigned, researchers, university faculty, administrators, and students, from a wide range of universities and institutions, condemn the illegal dismissal of Professor Darío A. Euraque by the coup government in Honduras.We urge the international community and, in particular, the United States to use its leverage to restore constitutional rule in Honduras.
Professor Euraque's seminal work, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic: Region and State in Honduras, 1870–1972, transformed the historiography of Honduras.In it, he demonstrated that the relative liberalism on Honduran elites could be traced to a tension between North Coast industrialists of Middle Eastern descent and the conservative criollo (descendants of Spanish colonists) oligarchy of the country's interior.In subsequent studies, he has offered some of the most innovative and original interpretations of Honduran history. His investigations into nationalism, ethnic identity, and sexuality have opened new paths of investigation for other researchers in Central America.
Since June 2006, Professor Euraque has served as the Director of the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History (IHAH), a government agency tasked with overseeing all of Honduras's cultural patrimony, including the national archives, archeological sites, and public museums.Under his leadership, the IHAH has thrived, offering multiple in-depth workshops for local historians from around the country, greatly increasing the quantity, quality, and plurality of its publications, and significantly expanding the number of historical and archaeological sites protected by the national government.
On Friday, August 21st, Ms. Myrna Castro, the new Minister of Culture appointed by the coup government, added to the long list of constitutional breaches committed by the de facto regime.Violating the laws in place for discharging political appointees, she skipped over the IHAH's Board of Directors, who would have to vote on a resolution to dismiss Professor Euraque, and simply sent him a letter of dismissal.Rather than go quietly, he has decided to contest it.This comes on the heels of an attempt by the Reserve Forces of the Honduran Military to occupy the National Archives in Tegucigalpa. When Professor Euraque's office received a letter from the Reservists of Honduras, the IHAH immediately issued a clarification, noting that the building itself and the archives it houses are Honduran cultural patrimony and, as such, protected by the Law for the Protection of the Cultural Patrimony of the Nation (Decree 220-97).Even in the case of a situation of national emergency or a legally declared State of War, this National Monument, and any other National Monument inventoried as Cultural Patrimony of Honduras, is under the protection of the Convention of the Hague of 1954, "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Properties in case of Armed Conflict."
As a community of researchers, we offer our solidarity to Professor Euraque and the tens of thousands of Hondurans who are bravely risking their lives to restore democratic rule in their country. Furthermore, we condemn the coup and the systematic human rights violations that have followed in its wake.We call upon the U.S. government to increase pressure, perhaps by freezing the personal bank accounts of the coup leaders or the funds allocated to Honduras through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, until constitutionality is reestablished in Honduras.
[haw-info] 2010 AHA convention in San Diego - two points of view on a controversy
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
As a service, we are providing two different messages regarding a controversy over the American Historical Association's convention hotel for its January 2010 meeting in San Diego.A boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt had been called in July 2008 by a coalition of LGBT groups and the hotel workers union UNITE HERE in response to the hotel owner's having contributed $125,000 in personal funds to the campaign to amend the California state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.In January the AHA Executive Council and Business Meeting both considered a proposal to relocate the 2001 convention and decided against it for financial and logistical reasons.
Of the two messages that follow, the first is from Powell LaGange of UNITE HERE, sent to members of the University of Cincinnati history department and circulated on the Internet.(The first part of the message, with specific reference to the AHA, is included here, with a link to the full message.)The second is from Barbara Weinstein, a long-time member of HAW who was president of the AHA in 2007 and was a member of the AHA Executive Council through January 2009.
The HAW Steering Committee has not taken a position. This message will appear on the HAW blog (http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/blog/), where any comments can be posted and read.
Dear History Professors of University of Cincinnati,
I am writing you to reach out for support on behalf of San Diego's hotel workers and the LGBT community in regards to the American Historical Association's (AHA) decision to hold its 2010 meeting at the Manchester Grand Hyatt.This hotel, the 2nd largest Hyatt hotel in North America, is the site of a boycott called for by the LGBT community in San Diego, the Hotel Employees Union (UNITE HERE), and has been sanctioned by the San Diego Labor Council.
AHA Director, Arnita Jones, circumvented a proposed resolution signed by hundreds of AHA members to relocate the 2010 meeting and has kept the conference at the boycotted hotel.Much of the reasoning behind violating the boycott was to avoid a possible cancellation fee.Spending money at the Manchester Hyatt perpetuates injustice and discrimination here in San Diego.The community has come together to ask groups to cancel in order to stand with all those fighting against discrimination and for justice for San Diego's hotel workers, women, immigrants and LGBT community.
Show your support by having your History Department pledge not to attend the AHA convention unless moved to an alternate site and faxing the attached pledge to AHA executive director, Arnita Jones at (202) 544-8307.
[Powell LaGange's full message, with more discussion of the boycott itself, can be accessed at
First, I want to emphasize that, to my knowledge, there were no violations of AHA procedures (either in spirit or practice) in the way this resolution was handled. The Council discussed the original resolution at great length, with Arnita Jones participating (ex-officio) in the meeting only to provide information when needed. After a great deal of debate, the Council unanimously decided to propose an alternative resolution (which it has the right to do), and this alternative resolution easily passed at the Business Meeting. As for why the Council decided to propose the alternative resolution, basically we feared that we would lose a ton of money (more about this below) if we withdrew from the Manchester Hyatt. Since we would have to pay the Hyatt a great deal of money, and the hotel would not have to provide us any services, Doug Manchester might actually come out ahead from our "boycott." There is still the symbolic weight of a boycott, which we recognized as significant, but we decided we could make an equally effective symbolic protest through highly-publicized panels, exhibits, etc. And the AHA would arrange for rooms at other hotels for those members who preferred to stay elsewhere. This is not an ideal resolution to the problem, but it's one that we thought would allow us to register our disapproval of Manchester's donation without bankrupting the AHA.
The AHA arranges conference venues many years in advance, with the objective of getting the best possible rates. So the contract with the Manchester Hyatt was arranged years ago (before the AHA resolution urging the staff to give strong preference to unionized hotels). I have seen the contract and I think it is very unlikely that we could avoid a massive cancellation fee (it could be as high as $1million, though it would probably be somewhat less). If there was any evidence of discrimination against LGBTQ customers by the hotel itself, then we might have a chance to withdraw without a substantial financial loss, but there isn't. As one of the sites that DeGange lists says, the HRC has listed the Hyatt chain as among the best in their policies toward LGBTQ guests. We may completely disagree with Manchester's decision to donate to Prop8, but that was a private act, separate from the policies and practices of his hotel, and that makes it much more difficult to avoid the cancellation fee. Because of his donation, I would avoid staying there if I were going to San Diego on my own. And if we were just now making arrangements for the 2010 meetings, I would strongly urge the AHA to locate them elsewhere. But we have a longstanding contract, and as we know from the case of the OAH's experience with the Adam's Mark hotels, this sort of cancellation can bankrupt an organization. And in the Adam's Mark case, the hotel chain actually had a policy that the OAH was protesting (rather than a private action by an owner)--and it still put the organization in deep financial trouble. So it is extremely unlikely that we could withdraw in response to a private donation by the owner and avoid the cancellation fee. (Actually, it's not a cancellation fee--it's a guarantee to fill a certain number of rooms--but it amounts to the same thing).
To make matters worse, there are very few large hotels in San Diego that can accommodate a meeting the size of the AHA. You might note that the trial lawyers, one of the few organizations to withdraw from the Manchester Hyatt (and we have no idea what kind of advance contract they had, so it may not have involved financial loss--not to mention it's a much richer organization), moved their meeting to San Francisco, rather than to another hotel in San Diego. It's not that hard to find (bed)rooms for those who don't want to stay at the Hyatt, but large numbers of meeting rooms are another matter. This means we might have to break our contract with two hotels, and somehow quickly find two very large replacement hotels in a completely different city, and that could lead to losses of well over $1 million. The AHA's entire endowment, when I last checked, was only a little over $3 million, by the way.
In the meantime, an ad hoc committee has been actively organizing panels and special events that will be publicized to the wider community. I think it will be very clear to anyone paying any attention that the AHA's decision to hold part of its sessions in the Manchester Hyatt should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Manchester's position on Prop 8. Again, the argument about not feeding his coffers is irrelevant since we would be forking over a great deal of money no matter what.
As should be apparent, I'm urging HAW not to boycott the AHA meetings. But if holding HAW-sponsored sessions in the Hyatt really seems unpalatable, HAW could request that HAW activities be located in the other headquarters hotel, the San Diego Marriott.
The Iraq War: Origins and Consequences by James DeFronzo (University of Connecticut) provides a probing analysis of the Iraq War and its consequences from a social conflict perspective by exploring the key historical, political, and social underpinnings.
“Compared with the books written on Iraq by embedded reporters and scholars in recent years, DeFronzo’s book stands out as distinctive on various levels. It is thorough and comprehensive in weaving the historical narrative that led to the invasion as well as highly analytical in its examination of the invasion and subsequent occupation. DeFronzo delves deeply into the hidden causes of the invasion cleverly camouflaged by the Bush administration. The Iraq War is well written, well researched and well presented; it is a must read for the student and specialist as well as the general public.” —Ayad Al-Qazzaz, California State University, Sacramento
