Don’t miss this!  It really could be life-changing.
PeqB8JwpdE4?version=3″>

Nighttime view of Capital from Freedom Plaza

During last summer’s U.S. Social Forum, MPT team had the good fortune to meet and work with Elliott Adams, the current president of Veterans for Peace (VFP).  We were honored to learn that, after his having joined us on Peace Teams at that forum and his subsequent attendance at our Training for Trainers the following Fall, he had recommended us to the Veterans For Peace group organizing the October 2011 Movement events in Washington D.C.   At VFP’s invitation – and with the financial support of many of you – five of us made the drive to D.C. to come and facilitate nonviolence and peace team trainings here for VFP members and others dedicated to keeping Occupy D.C. a nonviolent, well-coordinated demonstration.

It has been an amazing experience and we have been both welcomed and very well received.  Our trainings have been witness to a wealth of diversity, with folks coming from nearly everywhere across this country….from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine; from Alaska to Hawaii.  We even had a young woman from Sweden!  For many in the group, this is their first political “action” ever…yet there were equally as many “movement veterans.”  Experience ranged from having had no nonviolence training before attending our workshops, to folks who can honestly profess to being professional nonviolence skills trainers and facilitators.

Participants seemed to especially appreciate the ideas of centering as part of preparing for peace team work, utilizing “I-messages”,  and the time spent mastering the CLARA technique (which was a new tool for even some of the most seasoned participants).   Afterwards, attendees expressed a new feeling of preparedness in helping defuse any potential violence.  One young constituent approached us afterward to say he found us to be “wicked knowledgeable”- – high praise in the Generation Y vernacular.  Another participant relayed, “You are clearly in love with the work you do. It shows and makes the training really engaging.”

Folks brought stories from the Occupy N.Y. and Occupy Wall Street events that they had just come from, as did other participants from the many other “occupy” events around the country:  a nation-wide movement called Occupy Together.  One of the most consistent and inspiring things was the deep dedication to nonviolence we saw in these groups, crossing all age, race, and educational boundaries.   People are emphasizing the importance of seeing the humanity in all of us: young and old; Republican, Communist, Democrat and Tea Party members; military veterans and college students;  dedicated peace activists and seasoned police officers.

While we have been here, we have connected with former MPT International peace team member Beth Wichman-Beusher (now based here in Washington D.C.) and former MPT staff member Sayrah Namaste (who flew in from Albuquerque, New Mexico).  We’ve been making new friends with each passing hour and, together, we look forward to gathering early tomorrow, Day 1 of this convergence in Freedom Plaza, to remind our politicians that – together, in one voice – we want people over profits, an end to the war machine, health care for all, the termination of corporate welfare, and sweeping environmental protections for our wounded planet.

Our deep appreciation to all who made it possible for us to be here, to train so many in the ways of nonviolence, and help empower the voice of the people to be heard.

- Peter Dougherty, Mary L. Hanna, Martha Larsen, Jasiu Milanowski, and Sheri Wander: MPT’s  NV Training Team to D.C.

Please stay posted on all that is happening in Freedom Plaza and around the nation:  This is indeed the voice of the people.

Stand With Me

Related articles

• Call to Action: Stop the Machine Occupation of Freedom Plaza Washington DC Begins Tomorrow (g1a2d0019c2) (ironboltbruce.com)
• ‘Occupy DC’ protesters rally in Freedom Plaza – Washington Post (news.google.com)
• ‘Stop The Machine,’ Occupy DC Gather In D.C. (PHOTOS) (huffingtonpost.com)
• “She Said We Should Expect To Be Beaten And Pepper-Sprayed” (huffingtonpost.com)
• Freedom Plaza Protest Continues Without Permit (huffingtonpost.com)
• Reflections on October 2011 and the occupations across the U.S. (playfulspirit.wordpress.com)

Watch this brief video clip for a synopsis of what OCTOBER 2011 is all about:

WE HOPE YOU’LL JOIN US!

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Two Irish filmmakers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briain, arrived in Venezuela in 2001, intending to make a documentary about Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who they saw as an intriguing figure.  One feature that makes Chávez so captivating is his impassioned oratory, and one of his speeches proclaiming the evils of neo-liberalism, and the U.S.’s role in its promotion, is featured in the film.  Chávez’s self-presentation as a defender of the people and as a staunch of opponent of international business interests makes him the target of both extreme loyalty and hatred.  The early part of the film focuses on the manner in which Chávez governs the country.  In many ways, he is far removed from the stereotypical modern leader; he goes to great lengths to talk in person to Venezuelan citizens, and also hosts a weekly TV show where any citizen can speak with him on-air.  His personal manner is also quite informal, demonstrated by his habitual greeting of supporters, and his attention to everyone around him, regardless of their status or rank.

While the early parts of the film show the successes of Chávez, they also foreshadow the coup by showing the private media’s campaign against Chávez, which becomes a major focus of the film.  The film pieces together several news reports from Venezuela critical of Chávez.  Also included is an ominous statement from George Tenet, the then-director of the CIA, “Obviously Venezuela is important, because it is the world’s third largest supplier of petroleum.  I would say that Mr. Chavez… probably doesn’t have the interest of the United States at heart.”  The film’s narrator, along with several of those interviewed for the film, accuses the United States of playing an active role in fomenting dissent and eventually supporting the coup plotters in their attempt to overthrow Hugo Chávez.

A few days before the coup, a leading general in the Venezuelan armed forces appeared across every private TV station and gave a statement that, while ambiguous, suggested that a coup was imminent.  Soon after, on April 11^th, opposition leaders organized a march to the headquarters of the state oil company in protest of the Chávez regime, while crowds loyal to Chávez gathered around the Presidential Palace, Miraflores.  Leaders of the opposition protest than urged the crowds to march toward Miraflores, hoping for a confrontation (protest leaders acted if it was a spontaneous action, but the decision had been made long before, and was part of a larger plan).  The scenes that follow play like a thriller.  The makers of the documentary were in the crowd of Chávez supporters (Chávistas) when snipers began firing at the Chávistas.  The film includes several close-up, graphic shots of bleeding protestors lying on the street.  The camera shakes, and you can feel the fear and confusion of everyone in the crowd.

A main focus of the film is the private media’s role in the coup attempt.  The film shows appeals from private TV stations urging Venezuelans to support the coup.  The film also includes several manipulated clips shown by private TV channels that seemingly showed brutality perpetrated by Chávez supporters, and these clips became a major source of legitimacy for the coup plotters.  Throughout the coup, private TV stations reported extensively (and often falsely) on violence by Chávistas, but refused to air evidence of popular support for the ousted President.

Following the shooting, the camera crew finds refuge in the Presidential Palace.  This is certainly the tensest part of the film, as ministers, palace guards, and other staff all shuffle through crowded hallways hoping for news, with no one knowing any more than anyone else.  The viewer learns of developments elsewhere in the country through constant chatter and rumors being passed around the hallways, with the narrator occasionally stepping in to explain.  It becomes clear the Chávez government had lost the support of most of the leaders in the armed forces, and many government institutions had been taken over by the Army.  Coup leaders come in and negotiate with Chávez, who refuses to resign, but agrees to allow himself to be taken away in the early hours of April 12^th to prevent the bombing of Miraflores.  Chávez is taken by the military to an island military base off Venezuela’s coast, but at the time, no one knew where he had been taken.

Following the removal of Chávez, coup leaders established a new government, headed by businessman Pedro Carmona.  The new government eliminated many government institutions (including the National Assembly) and instituted free-market policies, with at least the partial blessing of the Bush administration.

Though most international news outlets reported that Chávez had lost all of his support within the country, the reports were false.  Beginning on the morning of the 12^th, Venezuelans, especially in and around Caracas (many of Chávez’s supporters come from the shantytowns surrounding the capital), poured out onto the streets in support of Chávez.  Protestors were met with heavy-handed police tactics.  Though it had appeared the armed forces had been united in their opposition to Chávez, this was also false.  Many high level army generals had in fact participated in the coup, but there were still several who supported Chávez.  Perhaps more importantly, many low ranking soldiers remained loyal to Chávez, including the Presidential Guard, who cooperated with the Carmona government reluctantly.

Crowds began to gather outside of Miraflores in support of Chávez on the 13^th, and that number quickly rose into the hundreds of thousands, effectively cutting off the Palace from the rest of the country.  A dissident general advised the Presidential Guard of the situation, who decided to retake the Palace, which they completed successfully.  In the confusion, however, Carmona, and a handful of other coup leaders, escaped.  Palace Guards arrested the remaining coup leaders, and slowly, Chávez ministers, who had been in hiding, were greeted by cheering crowds as they were triumphantly escorted back into Miraflores.  The film documents the initial euphoria of those returning to Miraflores, as well as the confusion and disorganization that results.  The handful of ministers within Miraflores attempt to contact other Venezuelan leaders, but have major difficulties because they can’t get their message out through the private media.  Eventually, they regain access to State Television and swear in the Vice-President to exercise power in the absence of Hugo Chávez.  Chávez’s ministers continue negotiations with coup and military leaders, which eventually secure the release of Chávez.  He arrives early in the morning on the 14^th to hundreds of thousands of cheering fans, and gives a TV address appealing for calm.  This is where the film ends.

The film does a truly wonderful job of documenting the events of April 11^th- April 14^th, 2002.  Unlike so many other documentaries that feel distant, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised provides an intimate depiction of Chávez, and a few other key figures, while also providing a first-hand, on-the-ground account of the coup.  This approach produces the side effect that in many parts of the film, the viewer feels just as much in the dark as those on screen, increasing both the tension and the personal attachment the viewer feels to the events depicted in the film.  The many short, impromptu interviews and the perpetually shaking camera add to these feelings.  While scenes of regular Venezuelans participating in the protests and speaking to the camera provide the most enthralling portions of the film, the news clips provide context, and the film does an excellent job of framing small actions within the broader situation.

The film, while not directly about peace or nonviolent change, certainly contains several examples of both.  While the coup largely used military force (and if there was not actual violence, the threat of violence certainly loomed over any who resisted), the restoration of Chávez was largely peaceful, and was precipitated by a massive, nonviolent protest.  Unquestionably, though, both sides used violence to achieve their aims, but perhaps it is something not shown in the film that demonstrates Chávez’s partiality towards nonviolence and reconciliation.  Following his restoration, he avoided a major crackdown on the opposition, and in 2007, Chávez issued an amnesty for sixty people charged with participating in the coup.  In his speech at the end of the film, he acknowledged his opposition, and said that while they may not agree with him, constitutional processes had to be followed.  His plea that both sides remain calm was in stark contrast to the crackdown ordered by Carmona’s government on April 12^th.

MPT Intern-Danny Hirschel-Burns

You might feel scared a few months ago when CNN broadcasted about severe situations of Fukushima daiichi nuclear power plant following the Tohoku earthquake almost every day. Serious discussions about nuclear energy were suddenly exploded in the United States, and it gave us a chance to think about “nuclear” again. Since we encountered “nuclear” for the first time, it has been more than 60 years. Although politicians have manifested that nuclear is a clean energy, safety is not 100% assured once an accident happens. Indeed, people almost forget about the fact that nuclear power was originally invented for weaponry purpose but not for utility purpose.

It was people in Hiroshima/ Nagasaki who were the first human being ever exposed to nuclear radiation in history. In August in 1945, they were exposed to nuclear radiation without any physical protection. For others, the decision to bomb Hiroshima/ Nagasaki might seem right since Japan was persistent and stubborn to surrender. It might be right at that moment for the US and the world to end the war. Japanese might be the bad guys, and both the US and Japan sides might lose more lives without atomic bombs. But, the decision should never be justified. People who justify the decision and the event are those who have never understood pain of survivors. Hiroshima 60th Anniversary does not directly tell you how inhumane using nuclear weapons against human are; however, you will see intentions that led the US government to make the choice.

The Manhattan Project, which created the horrible weapons, started three years before Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The story begins when exiled European scientists suggested the US government to develop nuclear weapons in fear of Germany. Thus, the project was originally launched against Germany. The project involved not only a number of scientists, engineers, and politicians but also a huge investment. In history, “nuclear” is one of the great inventions judging from a purely scientific view, and the potential of its use is high despite its dangerous characteristics. In July, 1945, Nuclear weapons, which took USD 20 billion and three years, were completed. However, Germany had already lost the war. Now what? Only Japan was left, and the United States had a good reason to attack Japan with the phrase, Remember the Perl Harbor”. According to the 2009 Quinnipiac University National Poll, about 60% of American voters think bombing Hiroshima was the right thing to do. Can you really say so after you know the real situation behind?

In April, 1945, Japan started preparing to surrender and negotiating with the Soviet Union. Although the Japanese government was divided into two groups at that time, conditional surrender was the common goal. When the US government knew the fact, they immediately cut off all lines between the central government and embassies and councils outside. This operation was called “Magic Intercepts”. The US government did not have an intention to give Japan conditional surrender. In any case, Japan loses. To lead the next world, they needed to show their absolute power to the world. They did not want Soviet Union to be a co-occupier of Japan or a double leader of the world. To end the war, bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki was not necessary. In the film, General Eisenhower testified so. But it was necessary for showing their capability to end the war and giving threats of nuclear weapons to the world.

Therefore, the selection of the cities was carefully made. Such as topography, the city size, and strength of the buildings were taken into account to know accurate power of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Ogura (Nagasaki) were selected in the end, and shell bombing for the cities was stopped for a while. Then, as you know, 6th and 9th of August became the X day. Do you know both bombing were done in the morning?  Especially, the time when atomic bomb was dropped the city of Hiroshima was 8:15am. Yes, this was the very time when people go to office or school. That is to say, a number of people got directly exposed to nuclear radiation, blast, and excessive heat released from the bomb.

I personally contacted a survivor from Hiroshima, Keiko Murakami. Her testimony (5 series) is on YouTube, and I highly recommend you to watch those if you understand Japanese. As she testifies, people who exposed to heat and radiation died off one after another. Some of you may say she is lucky because she survived. Then, you do not know how much survivors have suffered. Both mentally and physically, being survivors is by no means a lucky thing. After Hiroshima/Nagasaki, survivors were treated like a guinea pig.  ABCC (Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission) was established in Hiroshima by the US government; however, ABCC never treated patient. Data, they took from the survivors, was used as a measurement of radiation effects, and the world today was built up on the research and Hiroshima/Nagasaki experiment.

We are the one who has created the today’s world. While declaring to create the world without nuclear, we cannot live without them. We should realize having treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is regrettable.  Today, the day when Hiroshima was bombed called “Peace Day” (August 6th), and 66th Peace Day is coming within a month. Although the day was a product from negative legacy, people have been fighting for peace. When will the world receive wish from Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Please think about Hiroshima again.

Works Cited

“Bombing Hiroshima Was Right, Amercian Voters Say 3-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds” 4 August  2009. Quinnipiac University. Web. 7 July 2011. <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1356>.

Hiroshima 60^th Anniversary. The History Channel. 2005. DVD.

Related websites

 Itou, Akihiko. “Voice of survivors-from the shores of a river(1)/ Keiko Murakami” 02 October 2010. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 8 July 2011.  ( This source in Japanese)

Hiroshima Speaks Out. http://h-s-o.net/eng/

MPT Intern-Mari Shibahara-

In February of 1973, activists from the American Indian Movement (AIM), and Indian rights occupied the South Dakota town of Wounded Knee (within the current borders of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation), the site of a massacre of between 150-300 Sioux Indians by the U.S. 7^th Cavalry in 1890.  The 1973 occupation was in protest of living conditions on the reservation and the rule of tribal chairman Dick Wilson, whose impeachment trial had recently been closed.  A stand-off resulted between AIM members and police, FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police.  The occupation lasted for 71 days, until both sides agreed to disarm in early May.  The on and off fighting resulted in the death of two AIM members, and a U.S. Marshal was paralyzed.

Following the Wounded Knee Incident, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation went through a very turbulent time (chronically, this is where the film begins).  At the time, there was significant conflict between supporters of AIM, who championed a return to traditional ways, and supporters of Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson, who was happy to work with the BIA.  This conflict led to significant violence, mostly perpetrated by Wilson’s supporters, known as GOONs (Guardians of the Ogala Nation).  GOON squad members repeatedly intimidated and murdered AIM activists and their families.  In 1974, the murder rate on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation was 8.4 times higher than that of Detroit, which, at the time, was considered the murder capital of the U.S.  At least fifty opponents of Dick Wilson were murdered, and between 1973 and 1975, there were sixty unsolved murders on the reservation.  The level of violence created an atmosphere of fear among residents and a warzone-like atmosphere, meaning AIM supporters were constantly aware of the threat of attacks.

It was in the environment of terror and violence that the death of the two FBI agents happened.  Two FBI agents in unmarked cars followed a red pick-up truck (though this fact was later disputed by the prosecutors of Leonard Peltier), matching the description of the vehicle driven by Jimmy Eagle, a Native American wanted on petty theft charges, into a small compound.  Not long after the FBI agents entered the compound, shooting started, but it is unclear if it was the FBI agents, the occupants of the pick-up truck, or those at the compound that started the shooting.  Neither the occupants of the pick-up truck or the residents of the area were fully aware of the identity of the FBI agents.  Many of those interviewed in the film say they acted out of self-defense because they assumed the occupants of the unmarked cars were there to kill AIM activists.  Both FBI agents were wounded in the initial shooting, and then they were both executed at close range (an Indian was killed later).

Following the shooting, many of the Indians involved fled.  Two Indians, Bob Robideau and Dino Butler, were captured and tried for the murder of the FBI agents, but to the surprise of the prosecutors, they were both acquitted.  Following their acquittal (and Peltier’s capture in Canada), the FBI stepped up his efforts to convict someone of the killings.  Peltier fought extradition to Canada, but a statement by a woman claiming to be Peltier’s girlfriend convinced the Canadian government to extradite him.  The state of the woman’s mental health seemed questionable, and she changed her story many times.  In the film, she appears and says she was intimidated by FBI agents in testifying and says she did not know Peltier at the time.  Peltier tells the same story.  The actual trial was quite one-sided, and Peltier was convicted of both murders and given a sentence of two life terms.

Many pieces of evidence used by the prosecution during the trial were either flimsy or completely false.  A piece of evidence was that a shell casing from the AR-15 supposedly used by Peltier during the shootout was found in the trunk of one of the agents’ cars, and a ballistics expert testified that the bullet came from Peltier’s gun.  There had been several AR-15’s at the scene, but the prosecution did not present any further bullets from the other AR-15’s, and it’s not even clear if Peltier had an AR-15 during the shoot-out.  A few years later, it was revealed that the ballistic expert had performed a further test, and had confirmed that the bullet found in the trunk did not come from the rifle associated with Peltier, but that evidence was withheld from the jury.

Another piece of questionable evidence that led to Peltier’s conviction was the vehicle that the agents followed into the compound.  Over the radio, one of the FBI agents had reported that they were following a ‘red pick-up truck’, the car driven by Jimmy Eagle.  Peltier, at the time of the shooting, drove a vehicle that was a bit of a cross between a van and a sedan.  The prosecutors presented the idea that the FBI agents had been referring to Peltier’s vehicle by the term ‘pick-up truck’, and therefore it had been Peltier’s car they had been following, giving the theory that he executed the agents more credence.  The film shows Peltier’s car, and also shows various individuals involved in the case sharing their views on the vehicle driven into the compound.  It seems that it is incredibly unlikely that the FBI agents mistook Peltier’s red and white van/sedan for a red pick-up truck.

There were not any direct witnesses of the killing of the two agents, but three, young Indians gave testimony placing Peltier at the scene of the crime.  Their statements, however, were somewhat contradictory, and also contradicted statements they had earlier made.  One of them was featured in the film stating that his affidavit in court was a lie and that he was coerced by the FBI into appearing as a witness for the prosecution.

In addition to faulty evidence, the jury was prejudiced by the intense security it received during the trial.  The jury was shuttled between the courthouse and the hotel every day in a school bus with curtains over the windows, and was always escorted by at least three SWAT teams.  Observers of the trial were told to be careful when they left the courtroom, and to always lock their cars.  All of these extra security measures prejudiced the jury against Peltier, because AIM activists, and Native Americans as a whole, were portrayed as dangerous and a real threat to the lives and property of those involved in the trial.

Ultimately, the prosecution did not have any reliable witnesses of the murders, nor did it have any physical evidence that Peltier, versus the many other Indians firing on the police cars, was the one who walked up to the two wounded agents and executed them at close range.  The prosecution also invented the mix-up about the vehicle the agents followed into the compound, leaving no substantial elements of Peltier’s guilt.  Regardless of the facts, Peltier was convicted and given two life terms.  He is still incarcerated and has had numerous appeals turned down.

His imprisonment has attracted significant attention from the international community, and many well-known organizations and individuals have come out in support of his release.  In 2000, Amnesty International issued a statement to the United States Congress declaring Peltier a political prisoner and called for his immediate release.  The Dalai Lama, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu, Bono, Peter Gabriel, Michael Moore, Dustin Hoffman, Helen Mirren, Mikail Gorbachov, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the European Parliament, the Bundestag, the Italian Parliament, the Dutch Parliament, the Belgian Parliament, and many more have all come out in support of Leonard Peltier.    If you’d like to take action, you can visit this website http://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/index1.htm, which has links to and instructions on how to contact your congressperson. If you’d like more information, you can visit the above website or this one http://www.aimovement.org/peltier/index.html.  You can also watch either Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story or the 1990 documentary The Spirit of Crazy Horse.  Peltier has also written a book entitled Prison Writings: My Life is My Sun Dance.

MPT Intern-Danny Hirschel-Burns

]]> http://michiganpeaceteam.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/incident-at-oglala-the-leonard-peltier-story/feed/ 0 42.714896 -84.563468 42.714896 -84.563468 MPT Incident_at_Oglala http://michiganpeaceteam.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/sometimes-in-april/ http://michiganpeaceteam.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/sometimes-in-april/#comments Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:56:24 +0000 Michigan Peace Team http://michiganpeaceteam.wordpress.com/?p=245 ]]>

A past is a past, and no one can choose a different course to change the history. Therefore, it is not practical to discuss what we could have done in the past. But talking about what happened in Rwanda 18 years ago, regrettably, there were just too many things that we could have done. Especially, there is no excuse for the international community to be accused. With many organizations, including large to small NGOs, the United Nations, the French armies, and the Belgium armies, having been presented, any of them never really tried to stop the genocide. The government of the United States did not even call the situation “genocide” since they did not want another Mogadishu, where two of their pilots were killed and stripped in public just a year ago of the Rwandan genocide happened. During the genocide, those organziations did not rescue Rwandese due to their interests not limitation of their ability, and willing individuals could not have power. If the international community has made different choices before and during the genocide, could have the number of causalities reduced or even the genocide never happened? I want you to think of the question, “Could it have stopped?”, as you read through.

According to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is (a) killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. In Sometimes in April, there is a scene that an official replies to a question whether genocide is happening in Rwanda. She persistently answers that there are some genocide acts but not genocide. At least, Rwanda were obviously faced with the situations (a), (b), (c) listed above, how come it was not called “genocide”? Even nine months earlier, CIA reported that there is a possibility of occurring genocide in Rwanda, which the U.S. government simply ignored. One certain reason for this is tragedy of Mogadishu that traumatized the U.S. government to intervene any African matters for a few years. However, more than anything, Rwanda had little attraction for other nations. Since there was no oil and major natural resource to protect in the poor tiny country, it seems that the international community wanted to minimize their damage. Otherwise, there were too many things that could have done simply to save Rwandese.

One of the mediums played a focal role before and during the genocide was “Radio”. At that time, radio was the major tool for Rwandese to get information although there were also some newspapers and magazines. It was MRND, president Habyarimana’s party, who started using radio as a tool to spread the word. Through broadcasting lectures of Rwandan history and exaggerating stereotypes of Tutsis’ affluence, MRND surely planted hatred on Hutu people toward Tutsis. It is hard to imagine that radio commentators addressed Tutsis as “cockroaches” to the cheerful and lovely music. During the genocide, radio commentators denounced names of people who are on the list, addressed keeping road blocks, and even called for attacking the U.N. and European soldiers. Therefore, whether jamming the radio station was one of the issues for the international community. Only the United States had the technology to jam the radio; however, they refused to do so by making “freedom of speech” an excuse. Surely, “Radio does not kill people, but people kill people.” Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that western nations, who must have known influence of media, emphasized “freedom of speech” for a place where so many facts told mass killing was taking place. Current president Paul Kagame restricts media with media law in fear of leading similar situation to the genocide.

Also, the Church played as an important role as radio. Due to influence of Belgium, most of Rwandese was devout Roman Catholics; therefore, Rwandese, mostly Tutsis, rushed into the Church when the genocide started. Since political power moved from Tutsis to Hutus, occasional persecution towards Tutsis had never ceased. Whenever they felt insecurity, the Church was the place where they could be safe. However in 1994, there was no safety in the place any more. Indeed, most mass killings took place in the Church, and some pastors corroborated with Hutu perpetrations. In fact, the Church had helped state to promote ethnic divisions and spread history and myth of Tutsis affluence although the Church was believed as the largest non-state actor in Rwanda. There were a few members of the church, who felt insecurity of the country and tried to stop the genocide, were either dismissed or executed by the state. If they have made some voices toward both the inner community and the international community, the situation could have changed. However, attitudes of the Church towards violence and the Rwandan genocide were unbelievably positive as if they did not care. Today, the Church has not given official apology to victims and family of victims.

If I stated everything about all the actors involved in the Rwandan genocide and possibility of their actions at the place, I could not finish talking within a week. I would like you to remember things I talk about here and things you will watch in Sometimes in April are just a part of it. The Rwandan genocide could have stopped although it seems there was no way for Rwandese. Powerful others, who were there and who could be there, could stop it. Unfortunately, none of them tried to do so, and as a result, 800,000 people were killed during three months. No one knows how many lives we could have saved without trying, but we could have saved more if we really did.

Resources:

Neta Golan is a close friend and ally of Michigan Peace Team, serving as not only a person of support for our teams in Palestine, but an incredible inspiration for all individuals pursuing a path of non-violence.  She lights up the international activist arena with her dedication, power and humility and has an extensive track record of successful non-violent action for social change.

Neta is third generation Israeli, born and raised in Tel-Aviv she attended Jewish schools where “Jewish history and religion were taught as regularly as arithmetic” (180, Brave Hearts Rebel Spirits).  Throughout her education, she was taught a strict Israeli agenda that engrained in her mind the view of Israelis as victims, and “Arabs” (lumped into a single group to erase the Palestinian identity) as inherently violent.  She was taught as all Israelis are, to hate their neighbors, to feel superior and violated by them.  However, as a teenager she was given a sneak peak into the realm of atrocious human rights violations and the moral fiber of her being began to violently reject the assumptions she was taught to make about Palestinians and their land.

Resultantly, this amazing woman dodged the Israeli draft in pursuit of non-violence, went on to study Buddhism in Canada and created her own foundations of spiritual non-violent resistance.  Delving deeper into the foundations of non-violence, Neta then spent months in France at the venerable Thich Nhat Hanh’s Plum Village Buddhist Retreat Center, as well as taking time to practice meditation in prolonged silence in India.  It is my belief that these personal forays into spirituality profoundly effected Neta by grounding her in a life-long dedication to non-violence.  As a result of this deeply grounded stance, she has repeatedly put her body in potentially lethal danger, using her own flesh as a shield protecting Palestinian civilians from armed Israeli settlers and soldiers.  In 2002, Neta was among several other non-violent activists who voluntarily barricaded themselves inside Yasser Arafat’s compound and the Church of Nativity, where dozens of Palestinians were holed up against Israeli fire.  Using themselves as protection meant to the Israeli army that killing Arafat and other Palestinians in the compound meant the possibility of killing Israelis as well as international observers.

This type of non-violent action is known by numerous names, but we at Michigan Peace Team call it Third Party Non-Violent Intervention (TPNI).  Through this strategy, internationals (or in Neta’s case, untouchable nationals) provide protection simply by their presence.  This method of non-violent action has proven to be successful again and again, and is part of the provocation for the incredible organization Neta co-founded in 2001, International Solidarity Movement (ISM).  Among other incredible and like-minded individuals, many of whom are Palestinian, Neta organized a “movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent direct-action methods and principles” (www.palsolidarity.org).  ISM has enjoyed continued exposure as a non-profit and may be the most well-known pro-Palestinian movements worldwide.  This is the same courageous organization that in 2003 lost to Israeli military machinery, non-violent activist Rachel Corrie, whose parents spoke at MPT’s most recent “Signature Event”.  Rachel Corrie’s death is still in the process of being vindicated, as her parents struggle through the corrupt Israeli court system.

Neta has been a backbone through these kinds of horrid events occurring to both internationals and Palestinians engaged in non-violent action in Palestine.  Throughout her time living in Palestine with a history of engaging in non-violent action, Mrs. Golan has sustained numerous injuries and near injuries.  She knows first hand how to deal with these situations and has come to MPT’s aide numerous times over the course of our action in Palestine.  Most recently, Neta has worked and continues to work with our own team member Sandy Quintano, who was severely injured earlier this month while participating in non-violent action in the field.  The incredible perseverance Mrs. Golan has continues to create positive change within individuals and throughout the world.  She now lives with her husband and children in Palestine, working extremely hard to train Israelis, Palestinians and international activists in non-violent action as well as support current activists on the ground in the territories.

With the recent brutal attacks on non-violent protesters during the commemoration of Nakba day throughout Palestinian territories and along the borders of Syria and Lebanon, activists such as Neta have their work cut out for them.  However, the power individuals like Neta have in their commitment to non-violence fosters dreams for peace and keeps the will to partake in non-violent action alive.  Neta’s life accomplishments and perseverance in the face of a way of life contrary to her  moral stance is an inspiration and encouragement to all who face adversity in the struggle for peace.  Her humble nature, hard work and uncrushable spirit encourage young minds such as mine to actually be that change Ghandi so eloquently asked of us.  Differences in this world do not come solely from the minds of our government officials, but begin with focused, passionate individuals, presser-veering through hardship to create positive and sustainable change through non-violent social action.  The change is happening all around us and we have ourselves, other non-violent activists and Neta Golan in particular to thank.

-Kellie Brandt-MPT Intern

Interested in learning more about Neta and others like her?  Check out the book “Brave Hearts, Rebel Spirits: A Spiritual Activists Handbook” by Brooke Shelby Biggs!

MICHIGAN PEACE TEAM  is partnering with Peace Zones for Life…..We welcome your joining us!!!  If interested, just email us….

MPT: Peace Zones for Life

The film was published in 2008, 14 years after the Rwandan genocide was taken place. Among various films having focus on the genocide, this film incredibly succeeds in drawing afterward struggles between genocide survivors and ex-perpetrators. The struggles have started in 2003 when Rwandan president Robert Kagame announced release of thousands of prisoners who had confessed their sin. In the film, the Tutsi survivors show their agitation and struggles of how to face with the killers of their family members and relatives. To make matters worth, in some cases, they exactly know who killed their beloved ones because the killers were often their neighbors. Two Tutsi women, Rosaria and Chantale, featured in the film struggle how to forgive ex-perpetrators. Especially, Chantale’s sorrow is deep. She cannot go to a church to pray any more, where most killings were taken place, and she does not want to forgive her father’s killer John under any circumstance. How could they do such inhumane things? How come can they ask for forgiveness? How can I forgive them? A pitiful scar on Rosaria’s back and Chantale’s angrily cry show audience how deep the genocide left scars both on their bodies and minds.

Then, the ex-killers were just like “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible”? No, they are not. As Saveri who killed Rosaria’s family says, most people were pushed to join. There was no choice for them other than killing. He describes his actions during the genocide “unbelievable”, and he was even afraid to leave the prison in fear of facing with Rosaria and her family.  John, another perpetrator, who killed Chantale’s father, says he felt like he was an animal during the genocide. Their anxiety and guilty are captured so real in this film, which written documents probably cannot provide for readers. While people are often inclined to sympathize with obvious victims, audience would know that the genocide also paralyzed people on the other side. Yes, they can give excuses by saying “they are not responsible.” They were not wrong in a sense that political extremists incited killings and gave the only one choice of “join” to Hutus. However, running away from the fact they indeed killed their neighbors is not a solution, and that is what the film put emphasis on.

Both forgiving ex-perpetrators and seeking forgiveness from the survivors are not easy things to do. Even facing and accepting the fact is difficult, and forgiveness has to take further steps to reach. Besides, it was genocide not discrimination, repression, or anything like those. More strong hatred, which could promote violence as a mean of retaliation, must have existed there. In order for the survivors to forgive the ex-perpetrators and for them to be forgiven by the survivors, various efforts have been made through the civil society organizations (CSOs) and local communities. Such as tree housing projects, which ex-prisoners construct houses for the survivors, and counseling are the way to bring people together and enable close communication. In the film, communication is showed as a way to understand each other. Both Chantale and John were afraid of meeting each other, and they finally had the very first meeting 14 years after the genocide with the help of a faith-based organization. We cannot see visible progress during the meeting, but their communication brought invisible but certain changes to both Chantale’s and John’s minds. In fact, Chantale joined tree housing project and forgave him later on. Also, John felt much more freedom in his mind and made up his mind to start asking forgiveness from her. Running away from problems or keeping in one’s shell is not a solution, and these actions might cause more violent actions. Bishop John further explains importance of forgiveness in the society. According to him, forgiveness is a counterforce to desire employing violence, and non-violence is needed to reconstruct the nation and lead better future.

 Rwanda has a good sign of leading a non-violent society. As Joy Muana, a 15 year-old school girl, proves that ethnic division is somewhat eased among younger generation. She is a victim of the genocide, and she explains she used to feel angry toward the ex-perpetrators. When she forgives, she feels much better. Rather than having grudge and feeling angry, she chooses to wish and work for construction of a peaceful future of the country and unity among Rwandese. Also, Gahigi, who lost 142 members of his family, involves in promoting confession of ex-prisoners and working for reconciliation. Like them, stepping toward to those who killed their beloved ones is not easy. But efforts they have made and wishes they have had have reflected in the society. Indeed, there have been no major violent conflicts among Tutsis and Hutus after the genocide so far. Besides, efforts have been made by ex-perpetrators as well. Beyond comprehension, offering more tangible helps for the survivors actually works to restore trust. It must take time, and they cannot make dynamic steps. But I believe it is the way. If forgiveness is the ultimate form of love as the film emphasizes, it does not come right away. Therefore, we have to be patient to see whether non-violence would come at the last.

In short, Rwanda is still under construction of it’s a small world where a peaceful society and unity of Rwandese exist. 14 years may not be long enough for people to recover from injuries they got in 1994 genocide, and scars that the extreme violence inflicted on people may be too deep to cure. However, efforts made by people should not be ignored, and pursuing non-violence solutions show hope. The film proves that forgiveness is a strong nonviolent power. Violence is always strong; it has never continued. Rwanda was not an exception, and in fact, the nonviolence movement has continued much longer than use of violence. Of course, nonviolence needs supports. A number of supports, which can surpass threats of violence, are needed. But once it succeeds, a society like it’s a small world is not a dream, I believe.

Source

As We Forgive. Dir. Laura Waters Hinson. 2008. Film.

Further Readings

MPT Intern –Mari Shibahara-