Jan Weinberg explains the TPP as an aspect of the US’s pivot to Asia.
Jan Weinberg explains the TPP as an aspect of the US’s pivot to Asia.
Parents in our state should be given the means to exercise their right to opt out of sending their kids’ names and contact information to military recruiters.
Please click below to send this email to your state legislators and governor:
“As a constituent, I urge you to follow the example set by Maryland. The federal “Every Student Succeeds Act” contains a provision that compels high schools to provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all students to any military recruiter who requests the information. The law also says that parents have the right to remove their kids’ names from the lists being sent to the Pentagon, and that schools have the responsibility to tell parents that.
Only in Maryland are parents given an easy and directly presented means of opting out. The choice remains theirs, and they are empowered to make it. A right you do not learn about – or find any means to act on – is not a right at all!
Maryland is the only state thus far to pass a law that puts the military recruiter “opt-out” language on the school’s mandatory emergency contact form. As a result, large numbers of Marylanders have exercised their right to opt out.
Please make our state the second to take this step.”
From Jason Berteotti on Facebook:
“There is a lot of tension in this region, but the desire for peace seems greater than the hatred stemming from the past.”
Eric Baculinao and Greg Yu and Mia Li and Reuters Dec . 17, 2017
NANJING, China — China marked the anniversary of the Nanjing Massacre by Japan with a message of peace and friendship last week, potentially helping to realign relations between the rival Asian powers.
A somber President Xi Jinping led a nationally televised ceremony to remember the estimated 300,000 Chinese who died when Japan’s Imperial Army occupied Nanjing, then China’s capital, 80 years ago.
China has consistently reminded its people of the 1937 massacre, but in what is being interpreted as a highly significant diplomatic gesture, Xi did not lay wreaths or speak at the event on Wednesday, as he did on the same occasion three years ago.
Instead, the memorial speech was relegated to a lower-ranking senior party official, Yu Zhengsheng, who called for China and Japan “to grasp the broad direction of peaceful and friendly cooperation … and pass on friendship from generation to generation.”
A postwar international tribunal put the death toll from the massacre at 142,000, while some conservative Japanese politicians and scholars deny that one took place at all. Ties between China, the world’s second-largest economy, and Japan, the third-largest, have also been plagued by a territorial dispute over islets in the East China Sea and suspicion in China about efforts by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to amend Japan’s pacifist constitution.
Wednesday’s conciliatory message, delivered on the occasion of the most brutal episode in Japan’s invasion of China, was not lost on observers.
After years of disputes over history, regional rivalry and even maritime territory, “China is clearly shifting gear and seeking to lower tension and improve ties with Japan,” said Zhang Lifan, a political historian in Beijing.
“As China expands its influence and encounters resistance in the region and beyond, improved relations with Japan can mitigate the situation and help China to focus on more urgent threats like the North Korean nuclear crisis,” he said.
“We have to move on and we still need to deal with Japan, trade with Japan, send students to Japan”
“With President Trump urging Japan to bear more responsibilities, Prime Minister Abe cannot but think of various ways to have a modus vivendi with China,” he added.
China is committed to improving ties with Japan by “taking history as a mirror and looking forward to the future,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told NBC News when asked about the significance of the Nanjing event.
Others argued, however, that geopolitical self-interest is truly driving the changing dynamic between the regional rivals.
“On the one hand, Abe will follow Trump, as on the North Korean issue,” said Shi Yinhong, Dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University. “But on the other hand, Japan has some doubts about Trump’s policies.”
“The decisive factor, however, is that conflict is too costly for both sides,” added Shi, who supports “new thinking” for better relations between China and Japan.
The diplomatic signaling that emerged from the Nanjing ceremony merely represents “a continuation of a process,” he said, pointing out that the turning point in relations may actually have been Japan’s endorsement of the Belt and Road project, Xi’s signature economic program to link Asia with Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
A breakthrough was then apparently achieved in November when the country’s two leaders emerged from a meeting on the sideline of a regional summit in Hanoi to declare “a fresh start” in the relationship.
This was followed days later by Abe’s declaration that ties had improved to the point that the two leaders could visit each other’s capital next year.
The momentum led Tokyo and Beijing to agree in early December to establish a maritime hotline to prevent and control accidental clashes in the East China Sea. It has taken 10 years to reach a deal on the issue because of ongoing disputes over a group of uninhabited islands that Japan controls but over which China claims sovereignty.
The issue of forging a friendship with Japan continues to divide Chinese public opinion, however — often over the Nanjing massacre itself.
“If a friend is someone you can trust, then China and Japan will never be friends,” said Zhang Boyu, 22, a Peking University student from the Northeastern province of Jilin, a region once occupied by Japan.
Another student, Yu Qiran, 21, who attends the Communications University of China, said: “We can be friends as long as they admit what they did and face it. But if someone will not respect history, then I will never be friends with them.”
Noting the debate over whether Japan’s apology for wartime atrocities is sincere, Yuan Gang, a government professor at Peking University, argued that “history should not be an impediment” to developing relations. “Are you requiring the Japanese to kneel?” he asked, stressing that Japan supported China’s open-door policy and economic reforms.
Bian Weipin, 58, a retired driver and native of Nanjing, shared that sentiment.
“The painful history will always be in our heart,” he said. “But we have to move on, and we still need to deal with Japan, trade with Japan, send students to Japan.”
WASHNGTON, D.C. – The Green Party’s Peace Action Committee (GPAX) calls for the development of alternative solutions to violence on the International Day of Peace.
GPAX, an official committee of the Green Party of the United States, has chosen Sept. 21, the International Day of Peace (“Peace Day”), to announce its reorganization after a hiatus of several years.
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, September 21, 2017
“President Trump’s belligerent speech in front of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, with his appalling assertion that the U.S. would ‘totally destroy’ North Korea, show how urgently we need a strong movement for peace. The Green Party exists to represent the movement in the political field by an alternative to the two war parties,” said Rich Whitney, GPAX co-chair and Illinois Green Party member.
“Mr. Trump’s threats, which blatantly violate the U.N. Charter, are unfortunately consistent with invasions and attacks launched by the previous two administrations against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and with U.S. aid for assaults by Saudi Arabia on Yemen and by Israel on Gaza,” said Mr. Whitney.
Greens said the U.S. Senate vote on Monday for a massive increase in the military budget to $700 billion, approved with bipartisan support, and Democrats’ enthusiasm for a new Cold War with Russia are further evidence that a revived peace movement is necessary.
Peace Day was founded in 1981 through a U.N. resolution. GPAX exists to facilitate the planning and achievement of peace and justice actions of the Green Party and to support and promote the party’s anti-war candidates and agenda.
“We recognize that peace is not just the absence of violence, it’s a willingness to resolve conflict in a constructive manner and to develop alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence,” said Rita Jacobs, member of GPAX and the Green Party of Michigan.
The Green Party lists nonviolence among the Ten Key Values in its national platform. The platform calls for a number of measures to achieve peace, including the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, demilitarization in the Middle East, swift action against human rights violations, and adherence to international law and existing treaties.
“We believe that nations should prepare for peace, not violence. The achievement of peace can only be realized through practices that lead to economic justice, universal nuclear disarmament, sane defense spending, international cooperation, and human rights,” said Deanna Dee Taylor, GPAX co-chair and member of the Green Party of Utah.
GPAX furthers its mission and the Green Party platform through educational events and activities at the national and state levels.
Green Party: International law prohibits preemptive U.S. military action against North Korea and other countries
Green Party press release: August 15, 2017
The Empire’s Hustle: Why Anti-Trumpism Doesn’t Include Anti-War
By Ajamu Baraka (2016 Green vice-presidential nominee), CounterPunch, September 20, 2017
Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States
~ END ~
via GPAX Facebook Dec. 1, 2017
I love teaching. And when I teach peace, I enjoy the pushback from some passionate students, one of whom posted yesterday that he really thought peace was impossible and that we need to listen to those, like Ward Churchill, who advocate violent uprising. I riposted (with gratitude to the great researchers like Erica Chenoweth):
Yeah, Churchill is a true poseur, and an inadequate analyst. The only thing less effective than violent insurgency is terrorism, at least by all the available and robust research. The notion of strategic nonviolence has little to do with pacifism and everything to do with choosing disciplined people power to obtain desired changes in policies all the way up to and including regime change.
For the research summation in a TED talk:
For the peer-reviewed research: https://www.belfercenter.org/…/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Che…
For the data set: https://www.du.edu/korb…/sie/research/chenow_navco_data.html
For the updated data set (I was one of the research professors helping code on this part of it): https://www.du.edu/…/…/documents/data/navco_2-0_codebook.pdf
The testosterone-poisoned romantic addiction to violence is exactly what gives us destructive, environmentally disastrous bloody wasteful conflict. Churchill called the 9.11.01 terrorists “gallant combat warriors.” His poor thinking has been a seriously destructive factor in limiting, if not rendering essentially ineffective, the anti-predatory globalization campaigns of the 1990s. Jacking up the resistance and provoking it to violence is exactly what the state wants. Violent insurgency wins 26 percent of the time; nonviolent insurgency wins 53 percent of the time. In other words, in the toughest struggles of all–regime change–nonviolent resistance is twice as effective, wins twice as often, and has far far far lower costs in blood, environmental impacts, and treasure.