| |
Kathy Kelly, Co-ordinator, Voices in
the Wilderness US, on the Pledge of Resistance
Mil invited me to offer some thoughts
about the strengths and limits of a US Pledge of Resistance campaign
that many activists relied on to help coordinate nonviolent resistance
to US military interventions in Central America during the 1980s.
The Pledge was almost identical to the one under consideration
at your conference. A broad network of community and faith based
affinity groups pledged that in the event of US intervention in
Central America they would either commit nonviolent civil disobedience
or give support to others who chose to do so.
Members of the campaign were encouraged to build and strengthen
local affinity groups. Throughout the campaign, organizers were
assured that local decisions about how and when to activate the
call for civil disobedience would be supported by the national
campaign as long as groups adhered to fundamental nonviolence
guidelines.
Here in Chicago, we hosted numerous speakers, held many vigils
and teach-ins, developed approximately 12 Chicago affinity groups
which were represented in twice monthly citywide steering committee
meetings, facilitated regular nonviolence training sessions, cultivated
strong media contacts, and engaged in many, many actions of civil
disobedience. The Chicago P of R campaign also relied on funding
from several war tax refusers who regularly re-directed their
unpaid federal income tax to the coffers of the Pledge of Resistance
to help defray the costs for outreach and education efforts.
I think 'decentralization' was a major strength of the national
and local campaigns. Written documents clarified the nonviolence
guidelines, and there were plenty of long meetings debating whether
or not certain tactics fell within those guidelines, but there
were not, as I recall, any other interferences with each group's
ability to function autonomously. An affinity group's ability
to design local campaigns allowed for creativity, spontanaeity
and sensible evaluation about the best use of resources, time
and energy.
The campaign proved durable during a stretch when the US government
continually devised new military interventions. Some communities
focused on National Guard deployments to Central American countries.
Others focused on congressional offices that approved funding
and more funding for abusive Central American governments and
mercenary paramilitary groups.
On some occasions, a massacre or assassination would prompt efforts
to galvanize the entire Pledge network to act in concert. Periodically,
national conferences and national mobilizations were held in central
cities.
A national newsletter helped disseminate information and build
on successes reported by local groups. Many states and cities
had their own newsletters as well.
The campaign benefited from community building, some of which
was bolstered by the dramas of travel to Central America undertaken
by a steady stream of groups that visited Central American communities,
including those located in war zones.
Faith based Witness for Peace delegations were especially effective
in reaching people by sponsoring groups of ordinary US citizens
to visit and in many instances stay with Central American communities
living through warfare, destabilization, and the afflictions of
'low intensity conflict.' There was a good deal of cross-over
between Pledge of Resistance and Witness for Peace affinity groups.
Many US congresspeople and senators couldn't dismiss the campaigns
in their districts. Eventually, some of them changed their positions
on US intervention in Central America. Legislative efforts of
other peace and justice groups were, I think, strengthened by
the Pledge of Resistance campaign.
The mainstream media ignored many of the Pledge of Resistance
campaign efforts, but affinity groups learned a great deal about
ways to remain tenacious and continually try to cultivate local
media.
I think the Pledge of Resistance fell short of its potential to
make a difference in US policy making because we didn't devise
and advocate nonviolent actions commensurate to the crimes being
committed. Hundreds of thousands of Central American civilians
were disappeared, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered during the
years when the Pledge was most active. US taxpayers bankrolled
these atrocities. Most of the civil disobedience actions occasioned
a slap on the wrist. We knew the consequences and so did the media
and the US congress. Influential people in the US foreign policy
elite, the Pentagon, and major corporations could observe that
the US peace activists would periodically hold their events and
perhaps fill the jails and courts for a day or so. But afterward
we would go home and many would continue to pay for the same policies
they protested. We could have strengthened our efforts by preparing
teams for more rigorous risks, --risks to financial security,
employment, property possession, and many presumed privileges,
--and strategizing for repeated civil disobedience at certain
sites. Upon release from jail, groups with more flexible time
could have regularly returned to the scene of 'the crime' to repeat
their action, escalating the risk and consequence of their actions.
Practical measures could have been taken to bolster war tax refusal
by giving support to people who would leave their jobs rather
than cooperate with garnishment of wages. I was impressed by the
tenacity of the anti-abortion activists who staged "Operation
Rescue" events at abortion clinics. I completely reject their
interpretation of nonviolence because it included words and action
that were harmful to individuals and dehumanizing as well. But
I would readily acknowledge that by cultivating activists who
were prepared to give up an entire summer in order to participate
in sustained campaigns, they offered an arrow pointing to a very
strong potential for the further invention of nonviolence. We
can also look to the US civil rights movement efforts and international
Plowshares campaigns for examples of campaigns that called for
heightened risks and sacrifices.
Well. Many thanks for your attentiveness to this lengthy report
card. Our best wishes to all of you, plus our thanks for the example
you set for us by conferring so well.
Sincerely,
Kathy Kelly
Voices in the Wilderness
Chicago
Sign
the Pledge
^ back to the top
|
