Our gathering here today is part of an international movement against war and terrorism.
We are told over and over again that people overwhelmingly support the war, but that is not true. We are not alone, and we are not in the minority. In fact, internationally, we are in the majority.
There have been huge demonstrations for peace all around the world--150,000 in Rome, 50,000 in Berlin, 50,000 in London, 10,000 in Athens--and these demonstrations reflect public opinion in those countries. According to a Gallup poll, in every country except three, the U.S., Israel, and India, people are overwhelmingly against the bombing and in support of a criminal justice response instead of a military response to the September 11 attacks.
It is true that, for now, we are in the minority in our own country, but our numbers are growing.
Immediately after the September 11 attacks, voices were heard calling for peace and justice instead of vengeance. Some of the most eloquent statements came from those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks. For example, Phyllis and Orlando Patterson, whose son was killed, wrote to President Bush, saying, "Your response to this attack does not make us feel better about our son's death. It makes us feel worse. It makes us feel that our government is using our son's memory as a justification to cause suffering for other sons and parents in other lands." They urged him to "think about how our government can develop peaceful, rational solutions to terrorism, solutions that do not sink us to the inhuman level of terrorists."
Immediately, too, important organizations began speaking out against the drive to war. For example, on September 24, the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution which stated: "As we mourn [the] tremendous loss of life, we declare our resistance to efforts to use this tragedy to engage in military actions that can lead only to more carnage and senseless loss of life. We reject the idea that entire nations should be punished for the actions of a few. Bombing raids and military strikes will only fuel an endless cycle of revenge that can only bring the deaths of more innocent civilians, both here and around the world."
Just recently, in a strongly worded resolution, the 50,000-member American Public Health Association expressed its opposition to "military actions against Afghanistan and other nations," calling such actions "an undertaking that runs counter to the health and well-being of our populations."
Yes, according to polls, the majority of our people support the war. But that support is a mile wide and an inch deep, and it's declining. It was over 90 percent, now it's over 80 percent, and there is every reason to expect that it will continue to decline.
Many of those who support the war do so because they feel there are no alternatives. But there are alternatives. The Taliban have said that they will extradite bin Laden to a third country if they're presented evidence of his guilt. Why not negotiate over this; why rule out negotiations? If the Taliban still refuses to extradite bin Laden, why not convene a special meeting of the U.N. Security Council, present the evidence before the world, and request the establishment of an international tribunal with the authority to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for the September 11 attacks?
To answer those questions, we have to look closely at the motives behind the U.S. government's war in Afghanistan. U.S. actions in Afghanistan did not begin after September 11; they go back at least to the late `70s, when the CIA was arming and funding Osama bin Laden and the forces that evolved into the Taliban. If Osama bin Laden is indeed the culprit behind the September 11 attacks, those responsible for arming and funding him should be held accountable. They created a Frankenstein's monster. We, the people of the United States, should demand an investigation into the role of the CIA in supporting forces like bin Laden and the Taliban.
Why this intervention in Afghanistan? Is it merely a coincidence that, besides Iran, Afghanistan just happens to be the only possible transport route for Caspian oil? It would be na‹ve to think so.
We know the effects of the war on Afghanistan. Innocent people are being killed. But what are the effects here in the U.S. and around the world? No one said it better than a previous Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Many have called for a pause in the bombing during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins on November 17. Relief agencies like Oxfam have called for a pause in the bombing to allow food to be delivered in Afghanistan in safety and in sufficient quantities to sustain people through winter. We should support these calls for a temporary pause in the bombing, while we work to stop it permanently. While some people may not be ready to support a permanent halt to the attacks, many will support a temporary suspension to prevent mass starvation among the Afghani people.
When we leave this rally today, we should make plans to contact our elected officials--by phone, by e-mail, by mail, and in person--and tell them that we are opposed to the bombing and to repressive legislation that weakens civil liberties.