A workshop led by the author's Organization for Social, Cultural, Awareness, and Rehabilitation.

A recent report by the Asia Foundation cites corruption—next to security and poverty—as one of the three issues Afghans are most concerned about. A recent example of corruption can be found in the transportation of timber in Kunar. According to a member of the Lower House of Afghanistan’s parliament, who did not want his name to be disclosed, the Afghan Ministry of Finance has estimated that the revenue generated from the transportation of the timber from Kunar to be over 2,000 million Afghanis ($50 million USD), but after the timber was taken away the Kunar provincial government says that they collected just 480 million Afghanis from it. The problem in the Kunar timber industry is just one of the many examples of widespread corruption in the country.

Most Afghans see the direct impact of corruption in their daily lives. We have to pay bribes to the government officials for minor services, such as getting a national identity card. Provincial officials use their political influence to obtain shares in the development projects that are implemented in their province. Nepotism and political corruption has increased to drastic levels. The central Afghan government is not only callous to this, but its complicity is apparent. Meanwhile, provincial officials are becoming increasingly despotic as they compete with one another for more of the spoils. They act is if they are not accountable to the people, the Constitution or a system of law. Unfortunately, they are right.

There is no manner for the population to hold the government to account. In cases of extreme pressure, the central government sends a delegation to evaluate an issue in a province. The delegation goes to the province, spends its time with the corrupt official, and returns with gifts and pockets full of cash. Thousands of such commissions and delegations were made by the Afghan government in the last decade, but they have not shown any positive results.

I have often been asked what are we Afghans doing to change this situation. My answer is always the same: We are not doing anything. Ordinary Afghans feel helpless. We feel stuck with this government, and we feel that international intervention is necessary to make it any different. We are so tired of these paradoxes of conflict that we can only think about our lives at this moment, today. Tomorrow is too far, as if beyond the next mountain. This ethos of survival has made our people passive, and even numb, towards these abuses.

Meanwhile, the Afghan government has done little to win the hearts and minds of its people. It seems that politicians either do not want to act against corrupt officials, because they benefit from the graft, or they are incapable of acting against them, because they are politically so weak. The level of foreign assistance and the careless involvement of the international community generally exacerbates this problem. If the international community intends to achieve the goal of stability by representative democracy, then it needs to start helping Afghan civil society mobilize itself against corruption. Civil society should be encouraged to exercise nonviolent civic mobilization on the local level against corrupt officials.

Some of the tactics of nonviolent civic mobilization, such as protests and boycotts, have already been used in Afghanistan against the government and other entities. Even the Afghan Mujahideen, while fighting against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, created a parallel government in Peshawar as a tactic of nonviolent civic mobilization. Further, Afghan culture has some institutions—like the Jirga, a consensus-based tribal assembly—that can be used for mobilizing against corruption.

However, our civil society is not yet well-organized in a way that cuts across ethnic and linguistic boundaries. It lacks the knowledge and experience to launch strong civic mobilization campaigns. A low level of organization in such campaigns can make them easy to hijack by politicians or insurgents.

Nonviolent civic mobilization campaigns are necessary for bringing Afghans from passivity to activity. If people are empowered, then they can affect change in their society. Changing people’s mentality to think that this is even possible, however, is the first and most important step in empowerment. It is a long process and should not be expected to take place overnight.

People must be first educated, disciplined in thought and then mobilized for change. Citizens of Afghanistan must be taught nonviolent conflict as a means of struggle, especially through its roots in Islamic tradition. Afghan civil society throughout the country must convey the message that people have a right to employ nonviolent struggle for making a difference in their lives.

A workshop led by the author's Organization for Social, Cultural, Awareness, and Rehabilitation.

Part of the problem, too, is that Afghan security forces, particularly the police, lack a culture of tolerance. They do not recognize that ordinary citizens have a right to participate in peaceful demonstrations and protests. The Afghan security forces need to be educated in nonviolent civic mobilization and other related legal issues so they do not continue to needlessly suppress peaceful protestors and violate the basic civil rights of others.

Youth across Afghanistan, particularly in big metropolitan centers, have realized the need for nonviolent mobilization. They are mobilizing. Almost every week, we read that youth and university students are taking action for bringing change to their country. Volunteer non-political associations have been established, Facebook groups have been created, and youth are organizing against the status quo of conflict and corruption.

The Arab Spring has shown the world that Muslims can ably employ methods of nonviolence and democracy. Many Afghan youth would like to follow suit, but they lack guidance and direction for implementing such campaigns. They lack expertise in organizing across ethnic groups and mobilizing the whole population. They do not know where to begin or how to begin. They need experience and leadership.

Once Afghans understand that they are empowered, they will find their own ways to eradicate corruption and struggle nonviolently against ineffective officials in their localities. This will help strengthen governance, bringing Afghans closer to a more legitimate democratic government than the international community ever could.

Members of the Afghan Youth for Peace Volunteers in the greenhouse

We were lucky enough to receive an invitation in December to visit a self-run community called Chelsitun on the edge of Kabul in Wasalabad; it’s a mixed Tajik and Pashtun community split into 8 sections, consisting of 2,000 households each having its own representative which implements government initiatives and also manages security in the area.

We were told that the community practices religious and ethnic tolerance and has one of the only Mosques which welcomes joint worship by both Sunnis and Shias with the two Muslim groups sharing funerals and ceremonies. When we arrived in Chelsitun the pathway were unusually set with concrete; an independent initiative by the community (paid for by the people within the area) as a move towards installing proper infrastructure.

Our group was directed into a compound and then into the office of the community elders. It was like stepping back in time into what I imagined pre-war Afghanistan to be like; exquisite prayer mats hung on the war, the traditional ornate Afghan rugs; a greenhouse conservatory made of improvised plastic sheeting with the lushest greenery I have seen since leaving the UK.

We were warmly greeted by an assembly of community elders clad in the traditional Afghan turbans, long white beards; many were wrapped in the classic camel colored Afghan blanket. Once the greetings had been administered the elders took their seats cross legged on the floor. I was amused to see pinned up on the wall a very familiar poster which every co-op in the UK has displayed somewhere—the image of two donkeys tied with a rope heading in different directions trying to reach separate piles of hay, then a picture of the donkeys going towards the same pile of hay and both getting a share. The message: co-operation is better than conflict.

Once we sat down in the nicest of Afghan hospitality the secretary of the group “Tea for Peace” outlined the ethos of their work: “We want to control corruption in the area and the abuse of power especially among the marginalized of the community.” It was interesting to observe that a group of traditional Afghans had taken on ideas and practices you wouldn’t necessarily associate with such a culture. He continued to consult his written notes and explain the group further: “If there is a conflict in the community they bring the two parties together, have tea and aim towards bringing those parties together.”

It quickly struck me that this community was practicing strong elements of anarchism. The middle-aged secretary with round Gandhi-style glasses went to explain that their aim is to bring national unity, to get rid of discrimination whether religious of ethnic, that everyone is free and that no one should be discriminated against. He also emphasized that when interacting with one another they make sure there is no discrimination and that democracy and human rights are practiced within the community. They even have a letter of praise from the Human Rights Commission. They are all working in a voluntary way, and they do not take funds from the government.

One of the other elders chipped in to explain some of the result of their community focus: a concrete pathway, schools and piping for the whole area. This was all brought about as people want control of their area and in affect they’re freed from difficulties with the authorities and the massive current corruption problem of land grabbing.

Another elder with a long white beard and intense eyes stated with passion: “The people want peace so much, they take their lessons from the Quran which says that peace comes from a place of well being. They have no problems with any human being—all people deserve respect.” He went on to explain: “Peace can begin to be built in this country if interference in the region stops and also interference by foreign forces. There has been a betrayal by international communities, especially when the killing of Afghans is silent.” He went onto to explain that the people are under so much pressure with 44 NATO countries who are supporting the land grabbing and government. There are no honest people who work for the government. If the people rise they will face guns. The U.S. is behaving like a dictator and that’s not what the people want.

I learned that for their work within “Tea for Peace” they very much believe in empowering people, they feel it’s important for the people to get together and form a group, to work from the foundations addressing the root problem. To bring reconciliation where there is conflict they also use their faith.

Their words made be remember a teaching in the Quran which AYPV Roz Mohammed had shared with us only the day before. It roughly translates that God made lots of tribes on the earth so people can get to know one other (apparently it is written in the prayer room at Kabul Airport).

There was strong consensus in the group of elders that involvement of international forces has been extremely unhelpful and detrimental on various levels ranging from the bombing of civilians on the one hand by international forces against the people. It would be better for both sides to sit down together, with no party left out of resolution process. Internationals need to support the people, otherwise they won’t solve the problem

I was interested to hear about how they would deal with the Taliban, especially as international forces use the Taliban as one of the main justifications for being in Afghanistan. The elder with the big white turban addressed the question: “The Taliban themselves have been nurtured by foreign elements. The mujahudeen had been armed by the U.S., while the people of Afghanistan are trapped in a game which is hard to get out of. If there was no foreign interference then the Taliban could sit down with other Afghans and deal with their own problems, but with foreign interference there is always a condition which they will find impossible to accept. Afghans themselves can sit down together, however, it is impossible with foreign interference.”

Kathy Kelly asked a question relating to the planned Silk Road Path running through the country which will allow the transportation of raw materials mined within Afghanistan and will also act as a central trading route for the countries surrounding Afghanistan. A cross legged elder immediately jumped in: “It is very clear to Afghans that any minerals taken away from the country will not benefit the people. If in an ideal situation the pipeline and minerals went to helping the people of Afghanistan then that is acceptable, Afghans will not accept these initiatives. They can not accept them if this mining is being owned by foreigners. Foreign businesses must realize that they will not be able to exploit these natural resources unless the conflict is resolved.”

Another elder then chipped in: “The people that the U.S./ NATO have placed in power are thieves and murderers. They need to be taken out of power and placed somewhere else. If they could fill the parliament with 100 members of the people then peace would come to the country.”

The meeting ended with the message that unity is the key to uniting the people of Afghanistan. With the elite in power they do not understand how the common people live. Foreign money to the government disappears before it gets to them. If we want change then you can’t expect the current people in Parliament to bring it. We need representatives from the people.

It was very exciting for me to hear these viewpoints, I got the impression that their opinions hadn’t been formed by reading political books but from their first hand experience, wisdom and intelligence.

We were then shown around the lush greenhouse warmed by the traditional Afghan wood stove. I got to duck into the living quarters of an elder (to use the restroom) whereby I was fortunate enough to meet children playing in the yard and some of the women. It was explained to me that an extended family of around 45 people lived in the homes surrounding the yard and there was a communal water well where those in the area without running water come for supplies. I was very impressed by the organization of the community and radical ethos of the “Tea for Peace” group, which was definitely not what I or most Westerners would necessarily expect.

The Holy Innocents described by Matthew have many siblings in today’s Afghanistan. United Nations figures place the number of street children in Kabul alone at close to 60,000. In the neighborhood where I’m living, they can be seen on the sidewalks selling candy or balloons to passersby.  At congested roundabouts, they wander among stalled traffic, filthy rags in dirty hands, wiping the sides of cars and buses, hopeful that someone will condescend to drop them a few Afghanis. Some of these kids have homes to return to; many don’t. They receive no schooling, little medical aid, and scrounge for food wherever they can find it, often in the city’s ever-present, overflowing dumpsters, where they fight for scraps with the small herds of goats and sheep.

Though we see these children everywhere, we rarely meet Herod.  Who is he, and where does he live? Herod lives in the 49 countries currently composing the NATO coalition in Afghanistan, countries that fund and carry out the constant warmaking that sacrifices this nation’s children. Herod is alive and well in the nation’s president, Hamid Karzai, whose corrupt and ineffectual government robs so much of the money intended for the care of Afghanistan’s youth.  He dwells in the hearts and minds of those conservative Islamic clergy who conscript women into a humiliating subservience to the nations’ male population.

Most of all, though, Herod lives in you and me.  He inhabits all of us who sit smugly by the Christmas tree, fat with the knowledge that our stomachs are full and our families happy. Although we’ll all grumble when those inevitable forms from the IRS arrive next month, we’ll pay what Caesar demands, unconcerned that the money we render will supply the weapons that kill kids not yet old enough to attend school. Until we say “No!” to the killing, “No!” to funding an arrogant ally who cares little for the welfare of his people, you and I are actively and culpably complicit in the slaughtering of Afghanistan’s innocents.  The time has long since passed for each of us to stand up and demand an immediate halt to America’s participation in this ten year war designed to install and perpetuate yet another American power base in an area already saturated with warlords and ethnic struggle. As we commemorate once again those Holy Innocents who died at the hands of a cruel and jealous tyrant, let us vow to stand on the side of those who demand that America leave Afghanistan, not at some ever changing point in a nebulous tomorrow, but now!

Not five minutes into the Prologue, I sensed Faiz edging his way over to me. His voice quiet, almost a whisper, slips out into the room; “Will you study with me?”  Over the next fifteen minutes, we worked our way through three short lessons in a workbook written for first graders.  Each consists of a simple, one page story followed by a series of questions based on the text. They are extraordinarily simple; they seem almost humiliating for a twenty year old young man. As we study, nineteen-year-old Roz Mohammed shyly carried his blanket and English language dictionary to our corner and settled in.  Every so often, he’d shyly interrupt Faiz as he read and say, “Teacher, what does this word mean?”

Across the room, Maya and Ali worked on the meanings of basic words culled from a middle school dictionary.  Ali studied intently, pronouncing each word carefully, as if it were an egg that might easily be broken. “Basket. Bully. Bundle,” he would say, repeating each word until he got it right.

A half hour after we began, still only a few sentences into Ha Jin’s prologue, I looked across at Maya and asked, “Where in America can you find anything like this?  A cold room, nothing but quilts and a kettle for tea on the floor, and four boys asking us question after question about a language they’re trying to learn.”  In truth, this type of thing happens all the time in our small apartment.  The five young Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers who live here with their friend and mentor, Hakim, never go anywhere without a workbook or dictionary. After breakfast, one pulls a sheet of paper from his jacket pocket and begins to study.  Waiting for a ride, another asks, “What does this mean?”

Across the hall from us live four university students.  One is studying electricity; one aspires to be a pharmacist.  Two days after our arrival, one of them, a young man named Said, knocked on our door and asked if one of us would like to help them learn English.  Maya and I settled on meeting them in their apartment at 7 pm that night.  The first class had three students; the second, five; now there are six.  We work from copied pages and a white board.  Each student actively participates.

Each of these young men, all symbols of the “new Afghanistan,” possesses a thirst that won’t be quenched.  In our conversational practice, we talk of how they will shape their country in the years ahead. According to some figures, 68 percent of Afghanistan’s thirty one million people are under eighteen years old. No matter what the old guard wants to believe, the future of Afghanistan belongs to the young. We can only hope they won’t be co-opted by the temptations dangled before them by western “leadership.” We can only hope they’ll grab the reins of power and gallop off in a new direction, one of peace and reconciliation.

If the world you and I inhabit really wants to help these young people, and I doubt very much it does, it will do all it can to slake their thirst for knowledge. It will provide all the help they ask for, and nothing more. It will respect their intelligence and desire to find their own way. These students deserve our respect. They know, no matter what we say, they don’t have it now.  It’s about time they do.

Hakim: We are speaking from the highlands of Bamiyan in central Afghanistan, and we wanted to start off by thanking you sincerely for the guidance and wisdom that you have consistently given through your teaching and speeches in many places. We want to start off with a question from Faiz.

Faiz: In an article by Ahmed Rashid in the New York Times recently, he said that “after 10 years, it should be clear that the war in this region cannot be won purely by military force…. Pakistanis desperately need a new narrative… but where is the leadership to tell this story as it should be told? The military gets away with its antiquated thinking because nobody is offering an alternative, and without an alternative, nothing will improve for a long time.” Do you think there is any leadership in the world today that can propose an alternative non-military solution for Afghanistan, and if not, where or from whom would this leadership for an alternative non-military solution come from?

Noam Chomsky: I think it is well understood among the military leadership and also the political leadership in the United States and its allies, that they cannot achieve a military solution of the kind that they want. This is putting aside the question of whether that goal was ever justified; now, put that aside. Just in their terms, they know perfectly well they cannot achieve a military solution.

Is there an alternative political force that could work towards some sort of political settlement? Well, you know, that actually the major force that would be effective in bringing about that aim is popular opinion. The public is already very strongly opposed to the war and has been for a long time, but that has not translated itself into an active, committed, dedicated popular movement that is seeking to change policy. And that’s what has to be done here.

My own feeling is that the most important consequence of the very significant peace efforts that are underway inside Afghanistan might well be to stimulate popular movements in the West through just people to people contact, which would help impose pressures on the United States, and particularly Britain, to end the military phase of this conflict and move towards what ought to be done: peaceful settlement and honest, realistic economic development.

Abdulai: Dr. Ramazon Bashardost told the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers once that the people of Afghanistan have no choice because all available options in Afghanistan are bad. So, Afghans have no choice but to choose the least bad of the bad options. In this situation, some Afghans, and in particular many in Kabul, feel that the least bad option is to have the U.S. coalition forces remain in Afghanistan. Do you think that the continued presence of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan is the least bad option? If not, what are the possible truly good options for ordinary Afghans?

Noam Chomsky: I agree that there don’t appear to be any good options, and that we therefore regrettably have to try to seek the least bad of the bad options. Now, that judgment has to be made by Afghans. You’re on the scene. You’re the people who live with the consequences. You are the people who have the right and responsibility to make these delicate and unfortunate choices. I have my own opinion, but it doesn’t carry any weight. What matters are your opinions.

My opinion is that as long as the military forces are there, now, they will probably increase the tensions and undermine the possibilities for a longer term settlement. I think that’s been the record of the past 10 years largely, and that’s the record in other places as well—in Iraq, for example. So, my feeling is that a phased withdrawal of the kind that’s actually contemplated may well be the least bad of the bad options, but combined with other efforts. It’s not enough to just withdraw troops. There have to be alternatives put in place. One of them, for example, which has repeatedly been recommended, is regional cooperation among the regional powers. That would of course include Pakistan, Iran, India, the countries to the north, all of which, together with Afghan representatives among them, might be able to hammer out a development program that would be meaningful and cooperate in implementing it, shifting the focus of activities from killing to reconstructing and building. But the core of issues are going to have to be settled internal to Afghanistan.

Mohammad Hussein: It has been announced that the foreign forces would leave Afghanistan by 2014, and transfer responsibility for security to Afghans. However, what we have before us appears to be a very deceitful, corrupt situation of the U.S. government signing a Strategic Partnership agreement with the Afghan government to place permanent joint military bases in Afghanistan beyond 2024. It feels as if, to the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers, that the withdrawal by 2014 is therefore inconsequential in light of the larger long term plans to keep forces in Afghanistan. Could you comment on this?

Noam Chomsky: I’m quite sure that those expectations are correct. There is very little doubt that the U.S. government intends to maintain effective military control over Afghanistan by one means or another, either through a client state with military bases, and support for what they’ll call Afghan troops. That’s the pattern elsewhere as well. So, for example, after bombing Serbia in 1999, the United States maintains a huge military base in Kosovo, which was the goal of the bombing. In Iraq, they’re still building military bases even though there is rhetoric about leaving the country. And I presume they will do the same in Afghanistan too, which is regarded by the U.S. as of strategic significance in the long term, within the plans of maintaining control of essentially the energy resources and other resources of the region, including western and Central Asia. So this is a piece of ongoing plans which in fact go back to the Second World War.

Right now, the United States is militarily engaged in one form or another in almost a hundred countries, including bases, special forces operations, support for domestic military and security forces. This is a global program of world militarization, essentially tracing back to headquarters in Washington, and Afghanistan is a part of it. It will be up to Afghans to see if, first of all, if they want this; secondly, if they can act in ways which will exclude it. That’s pretty much what’s happening in Iraq. As late as early 2008, the United States was officially insisting that it maintain military bases and be able to carry out combat operations in Iraq, and that the Iraqi government must privilege U.S. investors for the oil and energy system. Well, Iraqi resistance has compelled the United States to withdraw somewhat from that, substantially, in fact. But the efforts will still continue. These are ongoing conflicts based on long standing principles. Any real success in moving towards demilitarization and reconstruction of relations will have to require primarily the commitment of Afghans, but, as well, the cooperative efforts of popular groups of the Western powers to pressure their own governments.

Faiz: After three decades of war and being at the raw end of regional and global military interference in Afghanistan, the people are feeling lost and without hope. People are even losing hope and not confident that the United Nations, whose charter is to remove the scourge of war from all generations, would be able to offer an alternative solution. We have talked with peace groups about the possibility of a blue ribbon or blue scarf team of individuals, perhaps including Nobel Laureates, who could speak out and make a statement about the dire humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, and perhaps throw open a debate to the world about alternatives for ordinary Afghans who are losing all hope. Do you think that there is any possibility of the United Nations stepping in to offer a different narrative in these dire straits? And is there any possibility of an independent peacemaking blue ribbon team of peace builders who can offer a way out?

Noam Chomsky: One has to bear in mind that the United Nations cannot act independently. It can only act as far as the great powers will permit—that means primarily the United States, also Britain, and France, essentially, the Permanent Members of the Security Council—which limit what the United Nations can do. It can act within the constraints that they impose, and the United States is by far the most influential.

So, just to give one indication of that, take a look at the record of vetoes at the Security Council. In the early days of the United Nations, beginning in the late 1940s, U.S. power was so overwhelming in the world that the United Nations was basically an instrument of the United States. As other industrial powers recovered from the war and decolonization began, the United Nations became somewhat more representative of the people of the world. It became less controlled by the United States and the U.S. began vetoing resolutions. The first U.S. veto was in 1965, and since then, the United States is far in the lead vetoing Security Council resolutions, which blocks action. Now, Britain is second, and no one else is even close. And that continues now. There will probably be another U.S. veto next week. That’s in general the case. If the United States refuses to allow something to happen, the United Nations can’t do anything. Other great powers have also some influence, but less. So, the real question is, will the United States and Britain agree to permit actions of the kind that are outlined in the question. And I think that can come about, but again, we’re back to where we were before.

Abdulai: On behalf of the Afghan youth in Bamiyan, as well as those listening in from Kabul, we thank you for your time with us. We wish you well, and the best of health.

Noam Chomsky: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk to you briefly. It’s a real privilege, and I greatly admire the wonderful work that you’re doing.

• Arab and Bedouin Israelis held a state-wide general strike on Sunday as several thousand demonstrators gathered at the Prime Ministry to express their outrage at a government plan that would relocate Negev Bedouins out of their homes into impoverished townships.

• In cities all across Russia, unauthorized demonstrations were ongoing Sunday after anti-Putin protesters escalated their dissent in Moscow at a massive rally on Saturday as tens of thousands marched for free elections.

• On Sunday, Syrians in some regions observed the opposition’s call for a general strike, despite reports that police in the capital forced shop owners to reopen.

• After leading scores of protesters inside of Durban climate talks on Friday, Greenpeace activists posed as representatives of wealthy corporations on Sunday to call attention to the beneficiaries of failed action at the ICC.

• Bangkok, Thailand saw a rare second rally in two days Saturday as a throng of marchers engaged in a ‘fearlessness walk’ reiterated their objections to laws that punish those who speak out against the monarchy.

• A flash mob erupted in a Pittsburgh Target on Saturday as Occupy organizers briefly flooded the store in protest of the company’s hiring policies.

• For the second day in a row, hundreds of Indian teachers in Bangalore boycotted classes on Friday in protest of low wages.

• Demonstrations condemning the NATO airstrike in Pakistan have been ongoing for two weeks across the country, and were sparked anew after prayers Friday.

• Tens of thousands of Yemenis took to the streets again Friday chanting ‘no partnership with the murderers’ after a new Cabinet—half filled with pro-regime politicians—was announced.

• In the Dominican Republic on Thursday, hundreds of activists rallied against the government’s practice of confiscating or annulling birth certificates for those of Haitian descent.

In my child’s mind, I did not understand why anyone would do all of this—isn’t being in jail bad enough? Later I learned that they refused to eat or cooperate until they were recognized as political prisoners. The British government, which was occupying Northern Ireland, treated them like common criminals—no different from anyone else who had broken the law—but they saw themselves as a rival military force who, once apprehended, had to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions strictures on holding prisoners of war. That is why Bobby Sands died, because the British would not treat him like a prisoner of war.

Dad and his brothers were not allowed to visit the men. Soon after, Bobby Sands died—starved to death in jail. Ten men ultimately died of starvation in the British jail—Francis Hughes, Raymond McCreesh, Patsy O’Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Kevin Lynch, Tom McElwee, Kieran Doherty and Mickey Devine. Some activists gave Dad a leather wallet hand-tooled with Irish symbols that was made in the prison. My sister carries it now—worn, splattered with paint, splitting from decades of use and still beautiful.

The first men were brought to Guantanamo on January 11, 2002—almost ten years ago today. In the early days of the War on Terror, as American bombs pummeled Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance thugs, and corrupt Pakistani security forces rounded up Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, the Bush administration found Guantanamo a convenient off-shore prison, far from American law. The administration created the convoluted term “Enemy Combatant” so as to do just what the British did—avoid the Geneva Conventions laws around the treatment of prisoners of war. Cut off from their families, abused and tortured on unfamiliar and foreign territory, and isolated from the media and lawyers, the men at Guantanamo found that the hunger strike was one of the few tools they could use. By 2005, as many as 200 men were engaged in hunger strikes at the U.S. naval base.

“My wish is to die,” Adnan Farhan Abdullatif, a 27-year old Yemeni, told his lawyer. “We are living in a dying situation.”

“We don’t have any rights here, even after your Supreme Court said we had rights,” Majid al-Joudi, one of the hunger strikers reportedly told a military doctor. “If the policy does not change, you will see a big increase in fasting.”

It was a harrowing and somewhat effective tool of political protest—a violence done only to one’s self, a self-inflicted violence that dramatizes and makes visible the over-arching violence of indefinite detention, constant interrogation, hateful scape-goating and worse.

The first wave of hunger strikes ended when the Guantanamo turnkeys met with the men and conceded to allow them to pray, promised to give them Qur’ans, and offered better living quarters. The men resumed their hunger strike when those promises were broken. The Center for Constitutional Rights documented the waves of hunger strikes in a 2005 report. Over the years, men at Guantanamo have continued to hunger strike and have been subjected to forced feeding regimes.

In September of 2011, the BBC received a letter from Shaker Aamer and eight other Guantanamo prisoners, who stated their commitment to hunger striking. Aamer, a British resident who has been at Guantanamo for nearly 10 years, writes:

After these years of hardship that we have spent here—we want you to consider our cases as soon as possible and give us the right to a just and a public trial or set us free without conditions.

The men go on to describe their situation:

Inhumane treatment is taking place at the hospital among other areas, especially affecting the sick and those who are on (hunger) strike and our deprivation of real treatment, health, diet and appropriate clothing which are not provided to us, nor we are allowed to provide them for ourselves.

These strikes are part of a long tradition. Conscientious objectors to World War I and World War II went on hunger strikes for better conditions in their prisons. In the Lewisburg Federal Pen during World War II, Ralph Di Gia and other white conscientious objectors refused to eat until the dining hall was integrated and black and white prisoners were allowed to eat together. They won.

Much more recently, prisoners throughout the California system launched a hunger strike to protest long periods of solitary confinement and other forms of mistreatment. At the height of the hunger strike, which began in July, there were as many as 12,000 inmates skipping meals in at least eight California prisons according to the Prison Hunger Strike Solidarity Group.

“We believe our only option of ever trying to make some kind of positive change here is through this peaceful hunger strike,” said Todd Ashker, one of the strike organizers who is incarcerated at the Pelican Bay prison and who organized the strike. “And there is a core group of us who are committed to taking this all the way to the death if necessary.” No one has died, and the strike was called off a few weeks ago after prison authorities agreed to review the policies for solitary confinement.

Half a world away, Maikel Nabil Sanad continues to go hungry. The young Egyptian is a pacifist and conscientious objector, whose blogging and reporting was critical of the military before, during and after the revolution. In April of this year, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by an Egyptian military court. His crime: reporting about ongoing human rights violations and political influence of Egyptian military. He began his hunger strike on August 23, explaining in a brief statement that he would refuse to eat until he died or was set free. On November 1, hearings in Sanad’s case were again adjourned until the 13th, even though he has already been on a hunger strike for more than 70 days.

Just this week, the mother of another imprisoned Egyptian writer and activist, Alaa Abdel-Fattah, began a hunger strike. On day four, Laila Soueif told the Associated Press that she was good:

My blood pressure is stable, but I will continue the hunger strike until Alaa is freed … It is becoming clearer and clearer that the military council is against the youth of the revolution and wants to make an example of Alaa so the rest will be silenced.

Her daughter added that the 57-year-old woman is drinking tea without sugar or milk and smoking cigarettes to keep going.

Again and again throughout history, in every corner of the globe—from Lagos to Los Angeles and everywhere in between—suffragists, civil rights activists, advocates for the homeless, prisoners and farm workers, stop eating and start organizing. They’re hungering for more than food, hungering for justice, peace and recognition as human beings. As the New Mexican author Sharman Apt Russell writes in Hunger: An Unnatural History, “What else can the powerless, the weak and disenfranchised offer up to the world but their own soft bodies?”

When Fiji’s brutally repressive military tried to detain an 80-year-old reverend with the Methodist Church this summer due to his involvement with politics, it caused quite a stir — not only because of his age or his former position as the military’s head chaplain, but also because he refused to let the soldiers take him to the barracks. “I told them, the only way to take me to camp now is bundle up my legs, tied up, and my hands, I will not go with you,” was how he described the incident to New Zealand press. “That is the only way, you carry me to the camp or you bring your gun and shoot me and you carry my dead body to the camp to show to the commander,” he said.

This kind of dissension from a former military official is not typical of the one group of Fijians that actually receives special treatment. Fiji’s strongman Commodore Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama goes out of his way not to antagonize the military, which has intentionally trained more soldiers than it could handle in order to supply thousands of them to the British Army, American mercenary companies, and the U.N.’s peacekeeping operations in places like Iraq, Sinai, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia.

Lieutenant Colonel Ratu Tevita Mara — profiled in part one of this series as Fiji’s highest-ranking defector — has asked for the use of Fijian soldiers overseas to be stopped until democracy is restored, since he sees the practice as helping to keep Bainimarama in the military’s good graces. “He certainly rewards the military by sending them on peacekeeping duties overseas, and yes of course they get extra allowance, extra money for that,” Mara told me in a recent interview.

Bloomberg News noted in 2007 that Fiji had “positioned itself as a discount-soldier surplus store,” and quoted Bainimarama’s “private-army sales liaison” as saying that “we made a conscious decision to create an army bigger than we need to generate foreign currency.” Private contractors who’ve hired Fijian soldiers for work in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past few years include Blackwater/Xe, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, ArmorGroup, and Global Strategies Group, which even hired a full battalion of Fijian soldiers to secure the distribution of new Iraqi currency in 2003.

A few years ago, Iraq became the biggest source of remittances flowing back to the island nation, with the mercenary companies paying an extra fee to the junta for taking its soldiers. Now, as tens of thousands of U.S. troops prepare to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year, Fiji is being asked to send more of its own soldiers to help fill the vacuum: in front of the U.N. General Assembly in late September, Bainimarama boasted that “with the planned withdrawal of the U.S. Forces from Iraq this year, the United Nations saw fit to increase the size of its Guard Unit,” for which “Fiji was selected to provide the extra personnel.”

Mara told me that “what I’ve been pointing out to the other countries is that you have to undermine the military. That’s the only institution that Bainimarama has in Fiji that supports him. And if the military continues to support him, then the longer he stays in. You certainly can undermine the military support for Bainimarama by threatening to withdraw Fijian soldiers from peacekeeping operations. That will certainly have an effect.” Fijians started an online petition “to stop the deployment of abusive Fijian troops on peacekeeping missions overseas.”

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tried to defend the U.N.’s continued use of Fijian soldiers at the Pacific Islands Forum in early September, where he said that “at the time of renewing this contract for Fijian soldiers in Iraq there was no other alternatives.” Ki-moon claimed that somehow the U.N. is privy to the internal workings of the junta enough to know who’s behind all of the abuse: “Whoever is known to have violated any human rights, we have not deployed,” he assured.

Mara dismissed this defense, and told me that “those participating in Iraq are regular force soldiers who have been in the army before and after 2006, so how can Ban Ki-moon verify they didn’t participate in the coup or its actions after? Totally impossible.” He said that “it’s a fact that soldiers involved [in the junta's abuses] have been on U.N. missions since the coup in 2006 and continue to do so. There is no way the U.N. can verify the soldiers involved.”

Still, despite the financial incentives offered to the military, Mara said that “I know for a fact that the military is divided in their loyalty to Bainimarama. Even I was accused of plotting a coup against him while I was still in the military. He himself asked me that question, if I was planning a coup against him. And I said that’s totally incorrect. Why would I be wanting to plot a coup against you? I’ve mentioned that regularly — that I don’t believe another military coup will solve things in Fiji. In fact, it will only make things worse. But you can’t rule that out. You can’t discount people taking things into their own hands.”

Despite his years of military training, Mara made clear, “I’ve always advocated a nonviolent approach and a nonviolent end to what’s happening in Fiji. We can certainly influence the military. The majority of the military would like a return to democratic governance. The majority would like a return to normalcy in their daily lives, to live peacefully with each other, talk peacefully without being overlooked all the time. They certainly know that the country now views them as a force used by Bainimarama to oppress them. There are certainly a lot of hard feelings toward them, but in Fiji we’re all related to each other. The barrier is easily broken down by talking to each other.”

The U.S. Embassy in Fiji has likewise noted that regime change will have to be brought about by Fijians themselves: in a 2008 Wikileaks cable, the embassy wrote that “it is very difficult to envision a circumstance in which the United States would preemptively ‘intervene’ militarily,” but noted that “it is conceivable that foreign governments might have to ‘intervene’ to protect foreign citizens if an attempt to remove Bainimarama and his group triggers civil war.”

Before it comes to military action, however, Mara believes that Americans and other internationals can help to weaken the junta by boycotting not only Fijian mercenaries, but also tourism, global brands such as Fiji Water that fund and employ soldiers, and other key lifelines providing millions in cash to the regime. These leverage points — discussed in part three of this series — are those that connect Fiji to the rest of the world, through which the junta makes those of us who pay into them complicit in its exploitation and abuse of the Fijian people.

This welcome announcement was somewhat tempered when further reports revealed that on January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas. There will also apparently be a “significant C.I.A. presence,” according to the New York Times.

What was I to make of that?

Since the fall of 2003, my anti-war grandmother friends and I had been struggling, demonstrating, petitioning, organizing, yelling, marching, traveling with one singular objective—to end the illegal, immoral war and occupation in Iraq causing so much death and destruction. We later added ending the war in Afghanistan to our agenda. When we first hit the streets, we were a small minority and met with anger. Most Americans backed the war. CNN promoted it like it was the latest blockbuster action movie, and the public cheered as the news channel repeatedly showed the fires ignited by our bombs lighting up the Baghdad sky.

I began Grandmothers Against the War with a vigil in front of Rockefeller Center with just two of us nervous, shivering old ladies on Jan. 14, 2004. Gradually, more and more people joined us—mostly grannies, but also Veterans for Peace and other lone individuals sick about the war. We endured hecklers who would shout such things as “Traitors” at us. One of our Vets for Peace almost got into a fist fight with a particularly obnoxious and persistent passerby.

But, we kept on, heartened that more and more of the crowd gave us thumbs up and yelled “thank you” as the public began to realize what a debacle our occupation was. Foreigners, in particular, applauded us—an Italian man came over to us one day and kissed all 24 grannies standing there on the cheek.

We decided to ramp up our opposition when we became aware that the Bush administration was impervious to the growing public outcry to end the war. Eighteen grandmothers, me included, tried to enlist at the Times Square recruiting station on Oct. 17, 2005, in order to replace young people in harm’s way for a lie. Actually, none of us had grandkids in the military. We did it as a matter of principle on behalf of America’s grandchildren. We figured they were entitled to long lives like we had all enjoyed and should not be forced to endanger their lives and limbs for an unjust cause.

When we were denied entrance into the recruiting station, we sat down on the ground and refused to move. The police arrested us and took us to jail. We knew we were entitled to peaceably dissent, but the cops apparently didn’t! After a six-day trial in criminal court, defended by eminent civil liberties attorney Norman Siegel and his co-counsel Earl Ward, we were acquitted. The resultant world-wide publicity put the peace grannies on the map, and I like to think that our action was perhaps the first significant anti-war protest with legs.

And, that was just the beginning. We launched a mind-boggling series of actions and never paused—even just last week, the Granny Peace Brigade, an outgrowth of Grandmothers Against the War, held a silent vigil at Lincoln Center which received wide attention from the media. Over the years, we went on a ten-day trek to Washington DC, traveled abroad to speak before peace groups, sent 100 grannies to lobby 100 U.S. senators, orchestrated colorful marches across Brooklyn Bridge, performed a whole show written and performed by us and did numerous other creative actions (it’s all chronicled in my book, Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace).  

I must say, painfully, that though I enthusiastically supported Pres. Obama during his election campaign, I became disillusioned and disappointed at his failure to bring our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. At times as I stood in front of Rockefeller Center, often in heavy rain or blazing heat, I would wonder if there was any point in putting myself through such discomfort. I began to feel discouraged and doubted these wars would ever end in my lifetime. I fully expected to be out there standing on Fifth Avenue until the day I died.

But, now, with this hopeful and unexpected news, I feel that perhaps it’s all been worthwhile. I like to think our granny efforts have been part of the pressure that contributed to Obama’s decision. I don’t know the political maneuvers behind his move—maybe it has to do with tangled foreign policy machinations I can’t begin to understand. Maybe it’s designed to help him get re-elected. Or maybe—just maybe—he did it out of sheer moral principle. I like to think that is his main reason, anyway.

Of course, the more urgent matter is Afghanistan. He says he will bring them home soon. My long immersion in the anti-war struggle, however, has taught me that we can’t count on his doing so unless we keep the pressure on him to end that occupation as well. It will inevitably end some day, but more quickly if we stay mobilized. We can’t clap our hands with joy, unfortunately, until it does.

For now, I will be cautiously optimistic. Dare I say “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, with reservations, as far as the peace grannies are concerned?

I dare.

The keynote speakers were Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North and the head of the Stop The War Coalition, award winning Australian journalist John Pilger, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and the British MP and vocal anti-war activist George Galloway. They made their points, but it didn’t go much further than that.

John Pilger criticised American and British administrations for sending soldiers to fight the Taliban while pursuing oil interests in Afghanistan by negotiating with and bribing Taliban officials. He praised the anti-war movement as a rallying call to citizens who want to win back democracy from “war-mongering political and corporate elites.” “From Egypt, Chile, Wall Street to Trafalgar Square, civil disobedience is powerful. Citizens should never underestimate their strength as politicians fear such movements,” he said.

Julian Assange criticized journalists for misleading people through the media blitz which promoted the case for war in the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. “Wars are peddled to the world through lies constructed by those who are close to those they are meant to be policing,” he said. He appealed to people to support the work of Wikileaks. “Get the truth and give it to us, and we will spread it all over the world,” he concluded.

George Galloway used his usual dramatic rhetoric to criticize the Parliament for the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, calling it “a rubber stamp Parliament, a Parliament of poodles and pagers who follow their leaders wherever they go.” He ended his speech lauding the anti-war movement by saying, “While we were unsuccessful in stopping the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we were successful in discrediting them.”

The final speaker, Jeremy Corbyn, said the anti-war movement should not fear the political rhetoric or media campaigns aimed to undermine it. He stated that it is up to British citizens to use democracy to put an end to the government’s military adventurism. “Stand together for peace, for justice, and keep up the pressure on the government,” he said.

While anti-war intellectuals were out for the day protesting through eloquent words, there were very few listening. Even though the Afghanistan War was the main theme and 2,000 people had gathered, the crowd was divided under different banners, from the Palestinian cause for statehood, to justice for rendition victims, to diplomatic action against Middle Eastern dictators, to the Hare Krishna movement. The rally ended up presenting an ambiguous political message.

The news media present at Trafalgar Square appeared to consist entirely of freelance photographers and budding journalists in search of a scoop from the keynote speakers. News reports of the rally surfaced on fringe online media elements, on blogs and local news websites like the Metro and Demotix. Pilger, Assange and Galloway granted media capital to it with their short appearances, while Jeremy Corbyn, a backbench MP, failed to rope in his colleagues’ support. This is no surprise, as it was the Labour government which started the war in Afghanistan in the first place. Corbyn by himself was unable to grant the movement the political leverage it would need to call the government out.

After the speeches, the activists and rally supporters gathered and marched to 10 Downing Street to deliver a petition calling for the recall of British troops stationed in Afghanistan. People chanted slogans like “1 2 3 4 we don’t want no bloody war…. 5 6 7 8 spend it on the welfare state,” and “You say warfare, we say welfare.” After delivering the petition, the protesters squatted in front of 10 Downing Street, blocking traffic as news vans were on site and news helicopters circled overhead. No government minister came out to make any statements, and the Metropolitan Police slowly began to circle the crowd and close ranks. Protesters standing their ground on the streets were pushed back by the police, to which they shouted, “Shame on you! Shame on you!” The demonstration continued for a couple of hours and was overall a peaceful one. However, the police presence and the traffic holdup later compelled the protesters to slowly move out of the street.

The march was mostly a leaderless mob of people with no idea what they were supposed to do outside Downing Street. The keynote speakers did not even accompany the protesters. The presence of Assange, Pilger or Galloway at the gates of the Prime Minister’s residence might have been a significant media event which would have had a better chance of courting government attention than a bunch of enthusiastic students, activists and artists shouting slogans. The protest turned out to be a one-day affair at a single location in the country. Unlike the Occupy Wall Street movement or the anti-corruption movement in India, the event was not planned to last or spread, and it elicited only a short-term commitment from supporters. Enthusiasm seemed abundant for a while, but as nightfall came people started exiting the scene.

Even though the 8th of October was a significant date, after 10 years the Afghanistan War has become a politically vacant issue in Britain. British citizens are currently more concerned with domestic issues like cuts to the welfare system, rising tuition fees and a lack of jobs, while the mainstream media has become preoccupied with analyzing the effects of the financial crisis in Europe. With the lack of media or political momentum beforehand, springing it on people that day failed to gather greater support.

The rally was devoid of any strategy or political strength and gave the government the easy solution of letting the day pass without making any statements. It was a weekend outing for anti-war activists and an interesting project for student journalists and bloggers, but not any part of a significant people’s movement.

The 792nd consecutive weekly vigil outside of Alliant Techsystems in Minneapolis in August.

As I mentioned in this space earlier, I was recently in Barcelona at the War Resisters International’s seminar on War Profiteering and Peace Movement Responses. It was a really interesting time to be a Yankee abroad. The streets in the city center filled up with protests against budget cuts each evening, and everyone at the meetings was talking about OccupyWallStreet in slightly awed and disbelieving tones—as though to say “even the U.S. of A. is getting with the program.”

I was repeatedly asked where I thought the Occupy Movement was headed, a question I cleverly avoided—“look, is that a tapas bar over there? How do you say, ‘more wine, please’ in Spanish?” It is a good question, but as Donald Rumsfeld used to say: “that’s above my pay grade.”

At the end of each long day participating in different seminar tracks (war and exploitation of natural resources, exposing the bad guys, new trends in war profiteering) and workshops on how to research the arms trade, use social media and campaign against drone warfare, we gathered in the city center for the Trobada, convened by the Center for Study of Justice and Peace (Centre d’Estudis per a la Pau JM Delàs). Lots of people turned out for these nightly events, the one at which I presented drew more than one hundred people on a Friday night (but no one in Barcelona eats dinner before 10 pm anyway).

I spent my 20 minutes trying to sharing some of the peace movement responses to war making and war profiteering. The people of Barcelona found this helpful and inspiring (at least those who were there, or at least that is what they told me) and so I thought I would use my blog post this week to share some of what I said there.

When we spend all our time focused on exactly what is wrong and how big and powerful the wrongdoers are, we can inadvertently give short shrift to the people organizing and struggling and (sometimes) winning, so I want to share some snapshots of U.S. resistance. The international news media has focused some attention on the Occupy Movement, but here are some things you are probably not hearing about:

A few weeks ago, a small group gathered in Washington to protest the annual weapons showcase at a fancy hotel. Representatives from every major weapons manufacturer came together, looked at the latest killing technology and made deals. They also ate very expensive meals—the Air Force Association and Lockheed Martin sponsored a $330 a plate banquet. Outside protesters held signs and read from a statement:

We cannot let the arms merchants, who are displaying the latest killing technology and weapons, conduct their gala banquet without protest.  We seek to give voice to the victims who have suffered and died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere as a direct result of U.S. warmaking, and weapons, like the Drone “Predator” and “Reaper” bombing planes, produced by the arms contractors participating in the Arms Bazaar.

At the beginning of the month, there was a week of action against nuclear weapons and the militarism of space organized out of a small town in Maine that is home to General Dynamics’ military ship building enterprise. The week of action encompassed thousands of people around the world. I like thinking about this group of people in particular. It seems like the script of a sci-fi movie—the battle between the powers that have colonized the heavens for military domination and the communities that want to see the billions of dollars and brilliance of scientists and engineers harnessed for the good of this world.

And on October 2, in Minneapolis, a small group of activists celebrated Mahatma Gandhi’s 142nd birthday and discussed what will happen next, now that Alliant Techsystems—the weapons manufacturer they have protested and vigiled and trespassed at is closing its operations in Minnesota and moving to the Washington, DC area. This cluster bomb maker wants to be closer to its customers. The group has been there every Wednesday morning for 798 weeks. If you know of a good place to vigil, give Alliant Action a call.

Also, last weekend, on the other side of our huge nation, Catholic Worker communities from around the country gathered in Las Vegas, Nevada. The acolytes of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, who believe in the works of mercy, personalism and adhere to a radical vision of redistribution of wealth and power out of the hands of the bosses and bishops and experts and intellectuals and into the hands of the poor gathered in the city that best exemplifies my country’s quest of mindless entertainment, wealth without labor and rapacious consumption of resources. They met and prayed and shared and resisted. Many occupied the Nevada Test Site where nuclear weapons were tested above and below ground for decades and Creech Air Force base where military drones operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are based.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, another group began an open-ended occupation in Washington, DC in a park called “Freedom Square” last Thursday.

These are just a few of the peace movement responses. And there are so many more! Despite the bleak outlook and the dark times, the United States is a nation up in arms: struggling, resisting, and organizing. It is a cause for hope.  We cannot get overwhelmed, we cannot get tired or despondent in the face of all of this. We must continue. We must share information and analysis, we must strategize together. We must.

• Thousands of Malaysian protesters rallied on Sunday against plans by an Australian mining company to open a rare earth processing plant in an eastern resort town, saying they fear it will harm the environment.

• In one of the largest rallies in years in Mogadishu, thousands of Somalis packed into a stadium on Sunday to denounce the Shabab Islamist group for the suicide bombing last week that killed scores of people, many of them students.

• More than 2,000 people protesting potential cuts to the national health care system staged a sit-in on Westminster Bridge in London on Sunday afternoon, blocking traffic on one of the city’s busiest bridges.

• Dozens of preachers from mosques across Morocco protested Monday in the capital over tight controls on their preaching, the first time such a demonstration has been allowed to go forward.

• Bulgarian protesters marched on the nation’s capital, Sofia, on Sunday, chanting slogans against the government’s plans to start exploiting shale natural gas deposits.

• WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and socialite Jemima Khan led a protest in London Saturday against the start of the 10th year of war in Afghanistan. Organizers of the Stop The War Coalition claimed 5,000 people attended the protest in central London’s historic Trafalgar Square.

• Thousands of women gathered in the southern Yemeni city to celebrate Tawakkol Karman, the first Arab woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Demonstrators also called on the international community to support a revolution in Yemen. At least 38 women were injured by rocks and batons when pro-government gangs attacked Sunday’s march.

Today—or yesterday, depending on how you count it—marks a decade since the ongoing war on Afghanistan began. Tomorrow marks the end of the third week since the occupation of Liberty Plaza near Wall Street began. The first might be an utterly solemn occasion were it not for the second. And were it not, also, for the occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., which began yesterday and, at nightfall, held a candlelight vigil for 10 years of war.

I wrote about the Freedom Plaza undertaking yesterday in The Nation:

A group of seasoned activists has been planning it for months already, since before the Wall Street occupation was even proposed by Adbusters. And like those in Liberty Plaza, they are intent on staying as long as it takes to be heard.

Before taking to the streets, the October 6 group gained the support of such familiar mass-mobilizers as the Green Party and Veterans for Peace, as well as newer ones like Peaceful Uprising and US Uncut—though they stress that this is a coalition of individuals above all. As individuals, they’ll be having open discussions on Freedom Plaza about 15 “core issues,” ranging from corporatism and militarism at the top on down to transportation.

The first day succeeded in making Washington pay attention. Some 2,000 people gathered at Freedom Plaza, heard speeches and music, and marched to the Chamber of Commerce and along lobbyist-lined K Street. Hundreds spent the night in sleeping bags on the plaza—illicitly, with light police presence. The organizers hold a permit through the end of the weekend, and what will happen after that remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, I’ve been busy writing about the various occupations for a variety of other publications, as well as giving interviews far and wide for such outlets as Al Jazeera, CBC, Pacifica Radio, New York 1, and WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. Here are some highlights:

• A discussion in The New York Times about what Occupy Wall Street is doing right and wrong. I emphasize the power of sustained occupation and the danger of disorganized civil disobedience tactics, though what the editors chose to highlight was my warning at the end about the movement getting co-opted.
• On the Harper’s website, an attempt to figure out where Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly came from.
• Also on The Nation‘s website, a widely-read “FAQ” on Occupy Wall Street. This was also reprinted in the Occupy Wall Street Journal, a newspaper produced by the occupation. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post called it “the single best place to start.”
• Also in The New York Times, a letter to the editor defending Occupy Wall Street from an early, dismissive article.

• Hundreds of Afghans have taken to the streets of Kabul to condemn the recent shelling of border towns by Pakistan’s army and accusing its powerful spy agency of involvement in the killing of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the country’s influential former president.

• Corrections officials in Sacramento said Thursday that they would discipline inmates who participated in a renewed hunger strike to protest conditions in the state’s highest-security prisons, where some prisoners have been held in virtual isolation for decades.

• Hundreds of people filled a small town gymnasium in Nebraska on Thursday to protest at a State Department hearing on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. Residents fear it will pollute the Ogallala Aquifer, a major U.S. drinking water source.

• Tens of thousands marched in Lisbon and Porto on Saturday to protest austerity measures imposed under the terms of an EU/IMF bailout, the first major rallies since a center-right government took power in Portugal in June.

• U.S. actor Sean Penn joined thousands of Egyptian activists who packed downtown Cairo on Friday demanding that military rulers speed up the transfer of power to civilians and end emergency laws once used by Hosni Mubarak against his opponents.

• Hundreds of indigenous Bolivians angry at plans to build a highway through an Amazon nature preserve resumed their protest march Saturday after a violent police crackdown a week ago.

• Thousands of Syrians took to the streets on Friday in demonstrations against the regime. Human rights activists said that at least 13 people were killed when troops opened fire.

• More than 1,000 people gathered in Savannah, Georgia on Saturday to attend the funeral of Troy Davis, the recently executed death row inmate many believe was innocent. They pledged to keep fighting the death penalty.

• Dutch police forcibly dispersed around 200 squatters in the center of Amsterdam on Saturday during a protest on the first anniversary of the introduction of a law formally outlawing squatting.

• Thousands Hungarians rallied in central Budapest against the measures of Prime Minister Viktor Orban at a demonstration organizers dubbed “D-Day.” Their demands included “fair” taxation, the constitutional protection of early retirement, the restoration of the right to strike, social dialog and the scrapping of retroactive laws.

• More than 200 Tibetans, including monks, protested in a tense area of southwestern China on the country’s 62nd National Day after a Tibetan flag and a photo of the Dalai Lama were torn down, a news report said Sunday.

• British unions organized a rally of 35,000 protesters against government budget cuts Sunday in Manchester where the Conservative Party opened its annual conference.

The end has to start somewhere. That’s what brought A Ride Till the End’s Jacob George, Jerrad Hardin, and Russ Ritter to Bluestockings bookstore on New York’s Lower East Side yesterday, with their luggage-laden bikes in the back. For the next few weeks, they’ll be making their way down to Washington, D.C. on a Bikes Not Bombs Bicycle Tour, arriving in time for the planned occupation of Freedom Plaza that will mark the 10th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, they’ll be a mobile speakers bureau and art collective, telling their stories in public and playing music, and raising money (in conjunction with Bikes Not Bombs up in Boston) to provide bikes for returning war vets who want to ride. At the heart of what they’re doing is a call for peace and, through it, a means of healing.

You can join them. I hope I will be able to. But in the meantime, you can listen to the whole Bluestockings event, including songs and stories from George’s recent return to Afghanistan with Voices for Creative Nonviolence, here:

Download [1:11:22, 32.7 MB]