Chris Wells

The Humanist Movement of the United States strongly condemns the recent statement by U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg claiming neutrality with regard to the illegal secessionist referendum of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz, on the pretext that is an internal matter.

The US is using the pretext of neutrality to disguise its covert support for the secessionists. The truth of the matter is that the US is already funding the opposition through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, and subverting the democratic process in Bolivia.

The current Government of Bolivia was democratically elected in 2005 with 54% of the votes with the next largest party gaining 29%. Since the very beginning, the opposition has boycotted the elected government, evidently because the process launched by the new Government threatens the privileges of the wealthy minority that has been exploiting the Bolivian people for centuries. Now they have called for an illegal referendum for “autonomy” which is really a call for secession, so they can regain control over what belongs to the whole country.

How would the United States react if a minority did not accept the democratically elected government and instead of participating in a process decided by the majority of people, tried to divide the country? Imagine if a small group of New Yorkers decided to separate from the country and unilaterally called for a vote in defiance of the electoral (Supreme?) court. How would the U.S. Government react, if such a minority were to try to block the process of a Constitutional Assembly, using every available means, including physical violence and the spread of hatred and misinformation?

As U.S. citizens and Humanists, we demand that our government stop interfering and respect the integrity of the democratic process in Bolivia. Among other achievements, this process aims to end the centuries-long exploitation of this country by the European and North American powers, and we believe that it is a historical debt that the U.S. now has the chance to repay. But the disingenuous declaration of the Ambassador, coupled with U.S. support for the secessionist elite, shows that the U.S. is not interested in real democracy and human rights, but in continuing its policy of exploitation of the people of Bolivia. Beyond recognizing the legitimacy of the Morales government, the U.S. should keep its hands off.

The process led by President Evo Morales would have made the Founding Fathers proud. In only two years, he has kept every one of his campaign promises. He has recovered control of the country’s resources, placed the needs of the people as the top priority and given a model of Non-Violence to the entire world by constitutionally renouncing War as a way of resolving conflicts. Instead of supporting yet another anti-humanist dictatorship in Latin America, why not learn from this example of non-violent, democratic change? Why not support an advanced humanist movement (not advanced in technology, but in human terms) that shows a new path for redressing age-old wrongs and opens the way to a more just, peaceful and secure future for all.

Attached to this letter, you will find the statement of Humanists all over the world regarding the situation of Bolivia.

The Bolivian people will soon vote in a referendum to approve or reject their new Constitution. The proposed Constitution will protect human rights and deepen real democracy, decentralizing power by giving regions and communities more autonomy and decision-making power than before. It is a Constitution that recognises, in its multi-nationality, the many indigenous peoples who have been discriminated against and exploited for centuries. Without eliminating private property, the Const itution includes the right of communities to a collective economy and to recover the sovereignty of the Nation over natural resources. It is an advanced Constitution that also rejects War as a method of conflict resolution. In short, it is a humanist Constitution.

With intelligence and courage, President Evo Morales is leading Bolivia through a historical process of transformation, confronting the violence of entrenched economic power with the methodology of non-violence.

Nevertheless, powerful economic interests in the resource-rich “Crescent” region of the country - actively supported by US funding through agencies like USAID - are now provoking a division of the country. They are ignoring the Consitutional Referendum altogether and instead organizing a Referendum for secession to be held May 4, 2008, creating the conditions for widespread violence.

Rather than accepting the 2005 election results that gave Morales an overwhelming mandate to re-draft the Bolivian Constitution, rather than working to have this proposed Constitution rejected by the ballot-box as is their right, rather than sitting down to dialogue, they are shamelessly circumventing democracy and all legal process, stirring up violence and endangering the lives of their fellow citizens. Their objective is to maintain sole control over the resources that should benefit all Bolivians. They call “Autonomy” what in reality is secession, a separation of the Nation that will of course leave them with control over the riches, and the general population abandoned.

In spite of President Morales having called for dialogue and asking the Church to facilitate, civic leaders in the Crescent region refuse to allow this to happen, preferring instead to organize their own paramilitary organizations to defend their “interests”.

The response that populations and governments around the world give now to Bolivia is very important. The Bolivian people need to see that their democracy is respected and that any manipulated fragmentation of the State will not be recognized. Those who are instigating the conflict must be told that democracy cannot simply be sidelined when it is no longer convenient to the interests of the powerful. More than just an internal matter of State, the crisis in Bolivia should be of concern to all who believe in democracy, social justice, and the right of the people to choose a new future through non-violent means. What happens in Bolivia will surely affect the stability of other countries around the world.

Humanists of the world, in solidarity with the Bolivian people, call on the international community to support the true democratic process in Bolivia and refuse to recognize this seditious “referendum” that puts Bolivian unity in danger.

Chris Wells
Spokesperson for New Humanism in North America
9 April 2008

Faced with the recent events in Tibet, the Humanist Regionals and all humanists of Europe, Latin America, Asia, Africa and North America condemn the bloody violence and repression by the regime of the People’s Republic of China against the demonstrators in Lhasa and in many other Tibetan cities.

These events are comparable to the violent repression of the Buddhist Monks and an unarmed population by  the Burmese government, with killings, arbitrary detentions and a blackout of all forms of internal and international communication.

At the same time, we denounce US policy and the arms dealers close to President Bush for promoting secessionism and destabilization between peoples worldwide to benefit special interests. Such is the case in Kosovo and Serbia and Palestine and Israel, where deeply rooted sentiments of national identity are exploited, and in Bolivia with the inciting of economic divisions.

In this difficult moment, the voices that open the future will not be those of politicians interested in division and confrontation.

It is of fundamental importance to defend the historical roots of all peoples, to recognize the right to practice one’s own beliefs and religious and cultural customs.  But above all, we need to give a new solution, forging a  new path that is valid for all humanity.

The secession of a nation or a region can have meaning if the norms, actions, and intentions do not go towards isolation or regress back to “old ways.”  Rather, they must go towards the humanization of relations between peoples, real recognition of diversity, and a true integration of the cultures, nations and regions who wish to represent the vanguard in the formation of a Universal Human Nation.

A truly new process can only be initiated through the path of nonviolence. This is only possible if a culture is projected towards the future, with a human look free of racial discrimination, a look that seeks equal opportunities between men and women, without castes or social classes,  a look that is capable of putting a long-term process ahead of immediate political interests.

As humanists we ask governments and leaders of opposing factions to sit down and listen to the different needs and proposals and to go beyond centralist and nationalist visions, seeking a different solution through a “humanist” vision.

We need new ways to interpret and comprehend the complexity of current social phenomena; we need the patience of history to open this dialogue that is so important and so urgent for all of humanity.  To this effect, we as humanists, through our Regional Spokespeople or as an international delegation from different regions (Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia), offer to assist by acting as cultural mediators between the Chinese government and the Tibetan leaders.

Without this dialogue and constructive perspective, the international relationships between China, USA, Russia, and Europe with their petty interests could produce an irreversible clash.

This is not about the Olympics. At stake here is the possibility of giving a coherent response for all of humanity.  We stand here humbly and with hope, together with all those who are building a new non-violent humanity.

Chris Wells

Spokesperson for New Humanism in North America

Giorgio Schultze

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Europe 

Tomás Hirsch

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Latin America

Sudhir Gandotra

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Asia-Pacific

Living Sign of Non-Violence, Bowling Green, New York City

Comments by Chris Wells

A little over five years ago millions of people around the world came out to protest the impending invasion of Iraq, expressing our outrage at what we knew would be a human disaster. Our protests were ignored and now the majority has come around to seeing things more or less this way. We were right, and not because of the cost — although that’s obscene given the desperate needs of people — but because it’s wrong to attack innocent people, and because violence doesn’t resolve anything. It only leads to more violence.

Five years later, the death and destruction continue and now a majority of Americans want this madness to end. Yet it continues, revealing clearly that we don’t live in a real democracy. In a real democracy, the people decide. This is not a war waged by the people of the United States, although a lot of people supported it. It’s certainly not a war that is in the best interests of the people of the United States. It hasn’t made us safer, quite the opposite. It has made our country a pariah in the world and has enriched Halliburton executives  –  sticking the rest of us with the bill. This invasion has been waged by a very small  minority with a virtual monopoly on economic and political power, and the collaboration of the mass media; a very small minority who wage war to defend and promote their interests. It’s radically immoral, in fact it’s monstrous, but that’s the situation.

Many years ago Gandhi said: “What is obtained with violence can only be maintained with violence.” This insight has great relevance today because physical violence is not only a tool for advancing the interests of the powerful; it’s also the end result of a whole structure of economic, racial, cultural, religious and generational violence that poisons daily existence all over the world. It is violence when children die of starvation while there is enough for everyone. It is violence when peoples’ land is stolen or made uninhabitable by pollution. It is violence when the pubic airwaves — owned by the people — are crammed with dehumanizing messages pushing every product and every lie imaginable, while the people remain uninformed about the most urgent questions affecting our future, our security.

 How can we overcome the violence? It’s not just a theoretical question, it’s a vital question because the probability of catastrophic nuclear war is growing every day. The need to change the course of history is urgent and this affects us all, rich and poor, left and right, Muslim and Christian and Jew. How can we overcome the violence? 

Maybe first by recognizing our true power and possibilities and helping others to do the same. Because those who want peace far outnumber the violent ones but they don’t express it. In the Czech Republic, where the US wants to build a military radar base as part of a new missile system and a plan to put weapons in space, 70% of the Czech people oppose it but the government goes ahead. If even 10% of those would act on their opposition things would change very quickly. But they don’t — so far…

This leads us to ask questions about our own activism, and our own beliefs. How can we become more effective? How can we adapt our militancy to the new times?  How can we gain more depth and conviction? How can we overcome our fears? Because even small fears can stop us, the fear of looking foolish or being misunderstood. The fear of failure… And how can we reach others on a massive scale? Because real change,  the change we want, will only be possible when a critical mass of the population become conscious of their possibilities and begin to exercise them. The system can’t withstand this because the system is only sustained by the cooperation of the majority.

Tonight we build a new sign of nonviolence, leaving behind our old friend the peace sign and launching an aspiration toward the future, a future that will only be possible when nonviolence becomes rooted in the human spirit so deeply that it informs every aspect of our existence. Because ending the war is important but it is not enough. If we could wave a magic wand and end all hostilities tomorrow it would be a great blessing but, leaving everything else in place, it would not be nearly enough.

 In 2005, Silo, the founder of our movement said: At some moments in history an outcry arises, a heartrending call from individuals and from entire nations. Then, from the Profound a signal arrives. May this signal be translated with kindness in these times, may it be translated in order to overcome pain and suffering—for behind this signal are blowing the winds of great change.

The sign of nonviolence expresses our conviction that nonviolence is the only exit from the growing crisis. A crisis that history and the absurdities of the system are generating; a crisis that will reach us all. It also expresses our profound aspiration for a new world, a just world, a world where everyone has the same chance in life, a human world. And as we build this sign together, we call for a deep change in our hearts, in our minds  – and of course in our actions.

Thank you very much.

Chris Wells is the spokesperson for New Humanism in North America

• Please join these organizations and individuals listed below in signing the open letter to Prime Minister Tusk. To add your name, go to the Campaign for Peace and Democracy’s website at  www.cpdweb.org or directly to the statement at http://www.cpdweb.org/statements/1009/stmt.html
• 
  
• Prime Minister Donald Tusk

The Republic of Poland

 

Dear Prime Minister Tusk,

 

        We are writing you as individuals and organizations based in the United States committed to human rights and peaceful relations among nations. We have been dismayed by the attempts of both the Polish and Czech governments to negotiate deals with the Bush administration to establish military bases in your countries despite the fact that these bases are opposed by a majority of your own people. The U.S. bases threaten to restart a Cold War between the United States and Russia. They have nothing to do with genuine defense and much to do with an aggressive U.S. military policy.

 

        The proposed bases — ten interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic — combine to produce a dangerous military escalation. The U.S. government claims that the anti-missile system is aimed against Iran, but there is no credible evidence that a missile threat from Iran today exists. As far as Poland is concerned, in January of this year your own Foreign Affairs Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said publicly, “This is an American, not a Polish project. We feel no threat from Iran.”

 

        The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released in December 2007 undermined any remaining credibility for the claim of a proximate Iranian nuclear threat by stating that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. And far from protecting against such a threat in the future, the anti-missile system and other nuclear escalations will only create even stronger inducements for Iran to seek nuclear weapons.

 

        A radar station in the Czech Republic and ten missile interceptors in Poland don’t constitute an immediate challenge to Russia’s nuclear deterrent, with its thousands of warheads. But there is a clear long-range threat that these U.S. bases will be upgraded. Official U.S. documents bear this out. National Security Presidential Directive 23, signed by President Bush on Dec. 6, 2002, stated that the United States would begin to set up missile defenses in 2004 “as a starting point for fielding improved and expanded missile defenses later.” This presidential directive was preceded in January 2002 by a memorandum from Donald Rumsfeld, at the time Secretary of Defense, directing the Missile Defense Agency to develop defense systems by using whatever technology is “available,” even if the capabilities produced are limited relative to what the system must ultimately be able to do.

 

       Washington’s scheme has already produced an ominous response from Russia, which has threatened to direct its missiles toward Poland and the Czech Republic if the U.S. proceeds with the system. Moscow has also threatened to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and to suspend participation in a treaty limiting the deployment of conventional forces in Europe.

 

        No nation — including the U.S., Russia, and Iran — has the moral right to possess nuclear weapons, which by their nature are weapons of vast and indiscriminate mass destruction. The U.S. and other nuclear powers can best reduce the danger of nuclear warfare by taking major steps toward both nuclear and conventional disarmament and refraining from waging or threatening “preventive” war — not by expanding the nuclear threat. Such steps by the existing nuclear powers would create a political climate that would powerfully discourage new countries from developing their own nuclear weapons.

 

        The only objection your government seems to be raising to the US missile system is that Washington is not offering enough in the way of military modernization for Poland. But the provocative bases are wrong on principle, and we would all be simultaneously safer and more prosperous if both Washington and Warsaw invested in social needs rather than new weaponry.

 

The democratic movements of 1989 are dishonored by the attempt to integrate the countries of central Europe into the network of more than 700 U.S. military bases around the world. We stand with today’s popular movements in Poland and the Czech Republic that are refusing to cave in to the pressure from the Bush Administration to accept this dangerous anti-missile system. And we welcome their support for our work for a new democratic, just and peaceful U.S. foreign policy.

 

SIGNED BY: 

Organizations:

Individuals:

Anthony Arnove, Stanley Aronowitz, Phyllis Bennis, Norman Birnbaum, Eileen Boris, Laura Boylan, Jeremy Brecher, Vinie Burrows, Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Cohen, Margaret W. Crane, Gail Daneker, Marie Dennis, Ariel Dorfman, Carolyn Eisenberg, Gertrude Ezorsky, Richard Falk, Cathey E. Falvo, MD, MPH, Samuel Farber, John Feffer, Barry Finger, Robert Gabrielsky, Bruce K. Gagnon, Akbar Ganji, John Gorman, Thomas Harrison, Nader Hashemi, Judith Hempfling, Michael Hirsch, Adam Hochschild, Doug Ireland, Padraic Kennedy, Joanne Landy, Jesse Lemisch, John Leonard, Sue Leonard, Staughton Lynd, Nelson Lichtenstein, Marvin and Betty Mandell, David McReynolds, Kevin Martin, Timothy Mitchell, David Oakford, David Ost, Mary O’Brien, MD, Rosemarie Pace, Christopher Phelps, Katha Pollitt, Danny Postel, Leonard Rodberg, Jennifer Scarlott, Jason Schulman, Stephen R. Shalom, Alice Slater, Meredith Tax, Lois Weiner, Naomi Weisstein, Chris Wells, Cheryl Wertz, Reginald Wilson, Julia Wrigley, and Howard Zinn

 

*The letter was circulated to individuals and groups in the U.S. However, Adam J. Chmielewski, Professor, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland received the text and wished to add his name.

We vigorously condemn the bloody military incursion by the Colombian Government into Ecuadorian territory.

The process of transformation in Latin America is passing through a critical moment.  Today more than ever it is necessary to accelerate the projects of political, economic and cultural union.

We need peace for economic transformation, recovery of our natural resources and the political rights of our peoples.

We need Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua to strengthen and consolidate their processes of change.  Humanists of America and the world will continue offering our firm support.

In the same way, we value other Governments of the region with a progressive orientation, and we hope that they go deeper in this orientation in new constitutional processes, with broad participation of the peoples.

We have no need for belligerent language or bellicose adventures.

The President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, by closely associating himself with President Bush has no idea how to bring peace to his own country and wants to export his logic of war to the region.  The armed incursion by Uribe and the slaughter carried out on Ecuadorian territory is unacceptable and there must be sanctions by the International Community.

But this conflict that the US government is trying to generate in our region will not be resolved with threats of war, or with army mobilisations.  The Bush Era is almost at an end and it is very probable that intelligence and good sense will also return to North America.  In the meantime, we need unity, peace and patience, and a strengthening of the non-violent action of the region’s social, political and cultural organisations.

Today, when Latin American integration is wanting to advance, carried on the processes like the ones led by Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Daniel Ortega, it is necessary that FARC abandons its position of armed insurgency, frees the hostages and starts on a path of pacification and support to the process of Latin American integration.

In the face of the threat generated, the revolutionary decision of President Evo Morales to include the rejection of war as a form of conflict resolution in the new Constitution carries more relevance than ever.  It is the moment for this decision to be followed by all the countries of the region.

As social movements of the continent, we cannot make a mistake in this key moment in the present situation.  The path against violence exercised by the economic and political institutions of the system is not the path of war and is not the path of violence.  Our action, in all cases, must be to give priority to human life, and the health and education of the population.  There is no other priority.  Our action is the unity of the Latin American social movement to reduce the power of capital and strengthen the decision and participation of the peoples.

Tomas Hirsch

Latin American Spokesperson for Humanism 

Giorgio Schultze

European Spokesperson for Humanism 

Chris Wells

North American Spokesperson for New Humanism 

2 de Febrero del 2008

Barack Obama es el único candidato que, desde el comienzo, se opuso a la invasión de Iraq. Está claro que repudia la tortura, y además ha prometido cerrar Guantánamo y restaurar el derecho jurídico “habeas corpus.” En contraste con los otros candidatos, Obama es como un pararrayos con el potencial de atraer nuevas energías para cerrar la brecha entre generaciones, y las diferentes etnias y religiones. El movimiento que él inspira es también una voz para el cambio profundo que anhelan los sectores más golpeados de nuestra sociedad. Los Nuevos Humanistas comparten el anhelo por un mundo más justo y pacífico que otorgue iguales derechos y oportunidades a cada ser humano, independientemente de las circunstancias bajo las cuales nacieron.

Desde una perspectiva mayor, Barack Obama también sería bueno para el resto del mundo. El Presidente de los Estados Unidos tiene un gran impacto en el resto de los países, y bajo la Administración de Bush hemos visto a este país convertirse en el peor vecino mundial. Al elegir un Americano-Africano, o sea, un representante de uno de los sectores más castigados de esta sociedad, la señal que se mandaría es que Norteamérica está en condiciones para tomar una nueva dirección. Estados Unidos tendrá la oportunidad nuevamente de impartir esperanza, en vez del temor y violencia — y lo que es bueno para el mundo, es bueno para los Estados Unidos.

No es que estemos de acuerdo con todo lo que propone el Senador Obama, pero tampoco es el momento para ser puristas y correr el riesgo de quedar al margen. Hoy debemos enfatizar lo que tenemos en común, abrir el diálogo sin esconder nuestras diferencias, y aprovechar la oportunidad para tomar una nueva dirección, ya que estamos en un momento de gran urgencia.

Es por todo esto que los Nuevos Humanistas en toda América apoyan a Barack Obama para la Presidencia.

Chris Wells

Vocero para el Nuevo Humanismo de Norte América

The continuing situation of social disturbance in Kenya is extremely worrying for humanists both within Kenya and around the world.  A situation that has, in reality, been brewing ever since independence is now coming to a head.  We are faced with the situation where the people of Kenya have been manipulated into the false game of tribe vs. tribe.  The friends of the Kikuyus are supposedly on one side with the friends of the Luos supposedly on the other side.

But Humanists see this game for what it really is: a game of two men struggling for their own personal power.  Two men who will stop at nothing to reach the top; from where they have access to all the contracts being signed; from where they can control where the aid goes and who can take the biggest percentage for their own pocket.

This situation is a disgusting legacy of colonization where favors were dished out to various important people in order to control the whole.  Tribal divisions were deepened and intensified.  Tribes became characterized using words like; thief, selfish, corrupt, vanity, promiscuous, etc.

Instead of trying to harmonize the people, decades of post colonial rule sought to deepen these divisions even further.  Politicians knew well that a simple way to access power was to divide and rule.

Today the problem in Kenya is not tribe against tribe.  It is about the vast majority of the population living in miserable conditions and a tiny majority living like kings in their wealthy suburbs.

Humanists around the world denounce the tribal politics being played in Kenya and want to shine the spotlight on those truly responsible.

We denounce the old colonial powers that created the system in the first place and who knew very well that by establishing a system that can be easily manipulated, the true issues of poverty, health, education, and a dignified life can be put to one side.  In this system “neo-colonialism” can thrive; where Kenyans have access to political power, but where the banks and all the resources in the country—the economic power—are controlled by outside interests.  It is well known that Africa repaid its debt many times over.  Why is Africa still paying more?

The fact that the old colonial powers and the USA (currently all members of the rich west and members of organisations such as the EU and the G8) sit by and do nothing while Kenya burns shows their complicity in the events now taking place.

In this situation we see a wider strategy of genocide.  This is the implicit strategy of the G8, EU and increasingly of China; a strategy that allows millions of human beings to die each year from malaria and AIDS when they are perfectly treatable and preventable; a strategy of fomenting civil wars in order to control mineral and oil resources and to sell weapons; a strategy that makes use of the never-ending source of cheap labour forced to work in undignified conditions without rights or protection.

We also denounce Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga—two men who could do so much to bring such change to Kenya—for allowing themselves to be manipulated like this, for allowing their supporters to go armed to the streets, to allow the police to fight with tear gas and live bullets, for not calling for, and insisting on, nonviolence to resolve this conflict.  They know what they are doing and they are doing it from the worst of intentions – their own personal gain.

We pay tribute to Africans who are trying and have tried to help this situation.  We pay tribute to Julius Nyerere, the late president of Tanzania, who, just over the border from Kenya helped form a Nation that considered human beings more important than the tribe they come from.  We thank John Kufour and Kofi Annan, two Ghanaians who are taking a deep interest in finding a non-violent solution to this situation and we thank such people as Graca Machel of South Africa and Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania for their contribution also.

We also pay tribute to Nelson Mandela whose government led the way on truth and reconciliation; a process that we hope may find some use in Kenya in the times to come.

Humanists around the world—on all 5 continents—are watching the situation with great concern and are willing to support in whatever way they can.

We are calling on all Kenyans to form local grassroots committees of nonviolence, taking the path of nonviolence shown by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Silo.

We call on all African Humanists to join the struggle to end neo-colonialism and demand an end to fraudulent and illegal 3^rd world debt.

We call on all African Governments to not remain silent, to not allow that they be part of this neo-colonialism.  Show solidarity to the Kenyan people.  Refuse all requests for weapons to be exported to Kenya; don’t allow weapons to enter the country!  Demand that outside interference in Africa’s affairs come to an end so that Africa can find the means to resolve its own problems, and only intervene based on resolutions of the UN!

We call on Western Governments and multinationals to end their exploitation of Africa which is only responding to their own selfish interests in oil and mineral resources.

We call upon the UN Security Council to follow up the situation in Kenya with great urgency and concern and to prepare all the necessary means to be able to intervene quickly if the situation demands a peacekeeping intervention.

Finally we call for the Mediation efforts to be allowed to happen and for both sides to fully comply with this process.  If this results in the need for new elections, Kenyan Humanists and the Humanist International is ready to help in whatever capacity the international community may feel is useful.

Signed on behalf of the Humanist International by,

Giorgio Schultze,

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Europe

Tomas Hirsch,

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Latin America

Chris Wells,

Spokesperson for New Humanism in North America

Sudhir Gandotra

Spokesperson for New Humanism in Asia-Pacific

Barack Obama is the only candidate who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. He clearly repudiates torture, has pledged to close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. Like no other candidate, Obama is a lightening rod for new energies, bridging gaps between generations, ethnicities and religions. The movement he inspires has given voice to a longing for deep change within the most wounded parts of our society. New Humanists share this longing for a more just and peaceful world with human rights and equal opportunity for every human being, no matter in what circumstances they were born.

Looking at the bigger picture, Barack Obama will also be good for the world. The President of the United States has a significant impact on other countries. Under the Bush Administration we have witnessed how the US has become the world’s worst neighbor.  Electing an African American, a representative of the most punished sectors of society, would send a signal that America is ready for a new direction. The US will have the opportunity to once again inspire hope instead of fear and violence; and what’s good for the world is good for the United States.
  
We don’t agree with Senator Obama on everything. But this is not the time to be purist at the risk of staying marginalized. It’s a time to emphasize what we have in common, engage in open dialogue without hiding our differences, and support the chance to move in a very new direction at a moment of great urgency.

That’s why New Humanists across America are supporting Barack Obama for President.

Chris Wells
Spokesperson for New Humanism
North America

For the New Humanists of North America, the revolutionary process unfolding in Bolivia is an inspiring example with which we feel great affinity. It is a humanist revolution, guided by the principles of non-violence and impelled by a courageous attempt to overcome centuries of discrimination. This noble project fills us with hope. At the same time we recognize that the process is at risk, due to the unprincipled actions of a minority afraid of losing its monopoly on power.

Therefore, we offer our complete support to the legitimate, elected government of Evo Morales, as an expression of Bolivia’s genuine attempt to liberate its people and form a real democracy with progress for all.

The new Constitution, presented to the President by the duly elected Constituent Assembly, guarantees for the first time full participation and political power for the indigenous majority. This is a development that should be celebrated by all those who honor the true meaning of democracy – “government by the people, of the people, for the people”.

The Constitution has rightly been praised by the High Commission for Human Rights of the United Nations for its commitment to ensuring (as basic human rights) that all people have access to water and to adequate food. The Latin American Parliament has unanimously endorsed the Constitution. Yet, in North America the corporate media has engaged in systematic disinformation, echoing the distortions spread by the Bolivian opposition and clearly revealing their true loyalty.

The Constitution distributes power more evenly, introduces new checks and balances, imposes a two-term limit for the office of President, and provides for a recall election, for the presidency and the department prefects. But the opposition, as well as The New York Times, have called the Constitution a “grab for power” on the part of the President, an accusation that is flatly contradicted by the text of the document itself.

The Constitution includes the renunciation of war as a means of resolving international conflicts, enshrining the principles of non-violence within the country’s foundational document. It affirms a deep commitment to a new (non-violent) type of revolution and a new type of relation between nations. Like the unequivocal affirmation of human rights, as well as the attempt to restore the dignity of the Bolivian people through the methodology of active non-violence, this provision shows the humanist core of this revolutionary process.

Finally, the United States has a long history of covert and overt violent intervention in Latin America (in defense of business interests). The current U.S. administration has demonstrated both its dishonesty and its ruthlessness in defending the interests of its oligarchy through monstrous military invasions. We call on the nations of the world to denounce and bring to light any form of intervention by the U.S., which would reveal a total lack of respect for the sovereignty of Bolivia and a complete betrayal of the democratic principles on which the United States was founded.

Chris Wells
North American Spokesperson for New Humanism