Extended Version[1] of Remarks To
National Conference of
ZENKO Assembly for Democracy and Peace

Saturday, 14 December 2002
Tokyo, Japan

Steve Freedkin

Publisher, http://www.ProgressivePortal.org/
Member, City of Berkeley, CA Peace and Justice Commission[2]

Konbanwa. [Good evening.]  I am grateful and honored to be here with you this evening. I wish to thank the ZENKO Assembly for Peace and Democracy for organizing this event, for inviting me to attend and speak, and for all of its work toward peace and justice. I also wish to thank the 21 people who visited Berkeley last month in a ZENKO delegation. I look forward to welcoming future visitors to my city, and I invite each of you to join a ZENKO delegation to Berkeley in the months ahead.

I want to especially thank Fumihiro Mori-san of ZENKO for his tireless work in organizing the delegation to Berkeley, this conference, and my current visit to Japan. Mori-san, domo arigato gozaimasu. [Thank you very much.]

Berkeley's activist tradition

In Berkeley, we are fortunate to have a strong tradition of citizen activism and a variety of avenues for citizens to affect the decisions of government. Berkeley's tradition of action for peace and justice goes back at least as far as 1950, when Lewis Hill, a pacifist during World War II, started radio station KPFA in Berkeley as a voice of free speech. Today, after 52 years, KPFA is part of a network of stations around the country offering the only radio that consistently provides information and analysis from an anti-war, progressive, pro-justice perspective. These stations are all supported by contributions from their listeners, both money and volunteer time. Because they do not have corporate advertising, they are not distorted by a financial incentive to promote a corporate viewpoint.

Many of the people who were active in the 1950s with KPFA and the 1960s with the Free Speech Movement at the University of California Berkeley campus, and then the movements against the Viet Nam war, for women's rights, for protecting the environment -- many of these people settled in Berkeley, and now their children and even their grandchildren are active in social issues. In July, one of the first Peace and Justice Commission members, Michael Sherman, spoke to the ZENKO National Assembly. You may have met his 10-year-old grandson, Anthony. Recently, Anthony said he is "hooked on politics" because of his grandfather. So, the tradition of activism is deeply ingrained in our city's culture.

You can learn more about Berkeley's history of social action from the excellent documentary produced this year by Osame Kimura-san of the Mabui Cine-Coop. I hope you all will have a chance to see it. Kimura-san is here today and I wish to offer him and his colleagues my congratulations for their excellent work.

Threats to freedom

Today, the people of Berkeley and the entire United States are facing a real danger of losing much of our freedom because of some emergency laws adopted after the terrorism of September 11, 2001. Here in Japan, you face threats as well from emergency laws.

I want to be clear about one thing. I absolutely abhor terrorism, and am appalled at the actions of Osama bin Laden and his followers. They must be stopped. There will be a need for greater security as a part of this effort. On my way to Japan this week, for example, I was subjected to additional reviews of my identification, my computer was tested with chemicals to make sure it did not contain any explosives, and my luggage was sniffed by a security dog. I am happy to endure these slight inconveniences to help increase the safety of air travel.

But the emergency legislation proposed in Japan and the laws already adopted in America go much too far. Using the excuse of terrorism, these laws restrict freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom from government spying and interference in our lives. The administration of George Bush is filled with fanatics who lack a fundamental respect for the freedom of the public. Attorney General John Ashcroft, the top justice official in the country, proposed to require mail carriers to spy on the homes where they deliver mail, a proposal so extreme that the directors of the Postal Service rebelled and publicly announced they would not participate. Admiral John Poindexter is now working in the military to develop a system for collecting all information in all databases about all Americans -- credit-card purchases, driver licenses, library records, tax records, everything -- to examine them for patterns that might be suspicious, in a program called "Total Information Awareness." As you know, the American government has held hundreds of people, mostly Muslims and Arabs, for more than a year at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to legal protections, without formal charges of any type, and with their identities kept secret.

Here in Japan, a similar threat exists. As I understand it, your government has proposed a series of emergency laws that would allow it to usurp local authority, restrict freedom of the press, and commandeer public and private facilities.

The excuse is fighting terrorism. The result is that these people are doing the work of the terrorists: destroying our societies, destroying the freedoms that make us special, and instilling a permanent culture of fear. They use the language of war and words of strength, but their response is actually one of profound cowardice. Living in a free society means taking some risks. In a free society, the authorities are not in control of everything that happens. Democracy is chaotic and unpredictable -- there is no better example of that than my own chaotic, unpredictable, and wonderful city. Authoritarian leaders fear and despise the chaos of democracy. So, in the name of bringing safety, they try to take away freedoms.

One of my country's most revered founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once said, " The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." We must heed these words today. We must fight terrorism not with fear, but with courage -- including the courage to risk staying with our principles of free, open, democratic society.

The real danger: authoritarianism

To now, I have not mentioned Iraq. I understand that here in Japan, some people argue that Iraq is a separate issue from the emergency laws and other threats to freedom, and that Iraq is not really a Japanese concern. Please allow me to respectfully suggest some ways that Iraq and emergency laws are very closely connected issues.

The danger we face today from emergency laws is not a threat from the political left or the political right. It comes from a different direction. It is the danger of excessive authoritarianism [support for having a strong central authority]. This is actually a documented defect of cognitive processing -- a disorder of thinking ability. And the obsession with Iraq is both an expression of this disorder and an excuse to impose restrictions on our societies.

After World War II, a team of sociologists conducted a detailed, 10-year study of the social factors that led people to become followers of Adolf Hitler. What they found was reported in a 1,000-page study by T.W. Adorno-san called "The Authoritarian Personality." The Adorno study identified a disease of thinking that was common to the Nazis and their sympathizers.

Authoritarians -- both leaders and followers -- share the common characteristic of viewing the world in stark, black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms. Everything is either good or bad. Everyone is either friend or foe. Every idea is either right or wrong. There are no in-between states, no shades of gray.

"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." These are the words George Bush used in announcing his so-called war on terrorism. In the process, he was also announcing his own authoritarian personality.

Such a rigid way of thinking, lacking in nuance, naturally leads to great fear and hostility. After all, people are not entirely good or entirely bad; beliefs are not usually entirely correct or entirely incorrect. The authoritarian cannot understand the middle ground, so anyone who fails to meet his rigid standards must be viewed with suspicion. As a result, the authoritarian views the world as a frightening, hostile, and confusing place. The authoritarian's response is to try to impose order -- for example, through emergency laws.

This kind of mental rigidity makes the current American administration unable to distinguish between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Let me say here that I believe Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who ravages his people and the environment to maintain his own power -- the worst kind of authoritarian. If a day comes when the people of Iraq develop a democratic, tolerant society without Saddam's iron fist of control, that will be a very good thing for them and the world.

But Saddam is not stupid, and he is not Osama bin Laden (who may not be stupid, but is profoundly ignorant of the Western world). There is no evidence that Saddam plans to attack America or its allies or interests. In fact, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency told the Congress that the only reason he might expect Iraq to attack American interests is in response to our threatening him. The American people understand this; opinion polls show a solid majority recognizes that attacking Iraq will increase the threat of terrorism, not decrease it.

What is going on in the mind of George W. Bush? I can only speculate. I had a conversation recently with someone who has spent time with Mr. Bush in social situations. She said he is a "doofus," which is a slang word meaning someone who is stupid and also socially inept. She said the White House staff members with Mr. Bush were embarrassed to be with him. So perhaps it is foolish to speculate what is going on in his mind, because perhaps it is foolish to speculate that anything is going on in his mind.

But we can see some clear signs of authoritarianism at work. And here is the most dangerous part. Authoritarians can readily become obsessed with perceived threats. Obsession is a very dangerous thing. You see, when someone becomes obsessed with something, that person acts in ways that actually promote the thing he is obsessed about, whether the obsession is positive or negative. So, if we become obsessed with the idea of the kind of world we want to create, we will create a psychological dynamic that moves us towards creating that world. But if we become obsessed with the things we want to stop, we will unwittingly act in ways that promote those very things.

Mr. Bush is obsessed with Saddam Hussein. While he believes Saddam's ruthlessness and his dictatorial style are evil, he also believes we must adopt some of those same qualities to oppose Saddam. So, we are being more ruthless and dictatorial ourselves, by passing emergency laws for example that restrict our freedom and make our society more like Iraq.

War and civil liberties

The Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, and who-knows-what's-next are all part of an ongoing campaign to maintain a perpetual warfare state, and keep people constantly in fear. In the 1950s an author named George Orwell wrote a series of novels that gave warning of exactly this threat -- titles like "1984" and "Animal Farm."

Here is where Iraq and the emergency laws become one issue. If we focus only on opposing these laws and ignore the war issue, we will fail, because the governments will use constant fear of terrorism and war to convince the public that these laws are necessary. If we focus only on opposing the war and ignore the emergency laws, we will fail, because emergency laws will be used to keep us quiet. Already, it is starting to happen. You may have heard about two grandmothers in San Francisco who were stopped from traveling by air because they are on a secret government terrorism list. Their so-called "crime" is that they publish an anti-war newspaper called War Times. I am pleased that my friend Kenji Asai-san did not have trouble flying to Berkeley last month. After all, he does the very subversive job of being an editor for the Flag of Unity newspaper.

There is another reason to view the two issues as connected. We know people are being killed because the economic sanctions against Iraq are being applied in an extreme way, and because of the depleted uranium weapons and other pollution left behind from the 1990 war; and we know that many more will be killed if a new war occurs. This kind of tangible threat is clear and immediate to many people, especially young people, and it concerns people from a humanitarian point of view. This issue attracts a somewhat different constituency than the civil liberties issue, which may appeal to people who think more about social theory and abstract, though important, concepts. We will have a greater chance of success if we bring together both groups of people in one powerful movement.

And we must include the movement for economic justice and opposing corporate globalization. After all, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and many others in the American administration come from the oil industry. Newspapers have recently reported on negotiations already taking place to divide up Iraq's oil wealth. I don't know whether Bush and his associates are truly obsessed with Saddam, or they are more obsessed with his country's oil. But it is well established[3] that war will take Iraqi oil contracts away from Russia and France and give them to Great Britain and America. Keep this in mind as you consider how those countries have behaved in the United Nations Security Council. It is a sobering perspective about the power of the dollar (or ruble or franc or pound or yen).

Let's not be authoritarians ourselves

I would like to close with a warning. Our own movements are not immune to the disease of authoritarianism. Sometimes, it is easy for us to point our fingers at others and say "they are wrong and we are right." We may be tempted to develop our own black-and-white views of the world where everything and everyone is easy to classify. If we become obsessed as we oppose the Bushes and Koizumis of the world, we will risk becoming more like them, not less. This would be a recipe for failure.

I don't know the Japanese peace and justice movement well enough to judge whether you are facing this risk, but I can tell you about the movement in America. Because of the information we in the peace movement have studied, we have a very different understanding of the world than most of the public, and sometimes, we may think we have all the answers, that we are right and "they" are wrong.

But our movement will not succeed until it becomes broader and attracts many more people. We cannot do that if our opinions are so rigid and dogmatic that there is no bridge between our view of the world and most people's view. If we insist that people adopt a complete, "politically correct" view of the world, we will drive them away.

There is a vast middle group in America. In that same poll where most people said attacking Iraq would make us less secure, a majority also said we should attack Iraq, and then a majority said we should do it only if the U.N. approves. People are confused, and their views are shifting. I am told it is similar in Japan. This provides a great opportunity, but only if we approach the general public with some humility and respect. Only if we listen to people who don't agree with us can we expect them to listen to us. This means if we hope to persuade others to change their opinions, we must be open to the possibility that sometimes our opinions may need to be adjusted.

When we speak of war crimes and war criminals, I believe we must apply one standard to all parties. Those who would attack Iraq have a different standard for judging their actions and judging the actions of others. America's government says weapons of mass destruction are intolerable if Iraq has them; but where are the weapons inspectors examining the largest arsenal of mass destruction the world has ever known, the nuclear weapons of the United States of America? We must apply the same standards to all parties.

The same is true of the peace movement. We must not oppose the violence of our governments, yet remain silent about the violence of Al Qaida or of Saddam Hussein. We must strongly condemn Israel's willingness to engage in actions that harm innocent Palestinians, but we must not remain silent about Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. Some may feel it could weaken our cause to insist that all sides must behave properly. But I am certain the vast majority of Americans, and perhaps the majority of Japanese, would be much more interested in joining a movement for peace and justice that is intellectually honest and applies its standards consistently. Only then can we demand the same of our governments.

There are some excellent examples for us to consider. For example, Amnesty International has a set of standards that it applies to everyone equally. In America, Amnesty International is highly regarded across a wide spectrum of the public, including many who feel the peace movement is too radical. We could learn something from that.

I also believe we must be careful with our language, because language shapes our thinking. When we refer to our opponents as "the enemy," we fall into war-like thinking, another form of authoritarianism. Let us refer to George Bush not as an "enemy," but as an opponent. War thinking cannot bring true peace.

These are issues facing the American peace-and-justice movement. I don't know whether they also affect the Japanese movement. I hope to learn more during my visit to your country. I will be in Tokyo for three more days, then I go to Kansai for the rest of December. I hope to have many opportunities for conversation with Japanese activists, so I can learn from you and bring those lessons back to Berkeley. If there is anything I can share that will be helpful to you, I am glad for that, as well.

Thank you all for your dedication to creating a better world. Let us remember to think much about what such a world would be like, and not focus exclusively on the problems of today. The more we can direct our vision to the future we would like to create, the sooner we can bring it into being.

Heiwa to seigi! [Peace and justice!]

[2] Views expressed here are Mr. Freedkin's, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of other members of the Peace and Justice Commission.

[3] See, e.g.: "The Role of Iraq's Oil as War Nears"; "Russia Fears US Oil Companies Will Take Over World's Second-Biggest Reserves"; "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue."

Top of This Page