<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Örsan Şenalp</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:orsan1234@gmail.com">orsan1234@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM<br>Subject: [Networkedlabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Jeremy Brecher - 'Climate Protection : The New Insurgency'<br>To: "<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Jai Sen <<a href="mailto:jai.sen@cacim.net">jai.sen@cacim.net</a>><br>
Date: 28 June 2014 14:08<br>
Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Jeremy Brecher - 'Climate Protection : The New<br>
Insurgency'<br>
To: Post WSFDiscuss <<a href="mailto:WorldSocialForum-Discuss@openspaceforum.net">WorldSocialForum-Discuss@openspaceforum.net</a>>,<br>
Post Social Movements Riseup <<a href="mailto:social-movements@lists.riseup.net">social-movements@lists.riseup.net</a>>, Post<br>
CJN! <<a href="mailto:cjn@lists.riseup.net">cjn@lists.riseup.net</a>>, Post India Climate Justice<br>
<<a href="mailto:indiaclimatejustice@googlegroups.com">indiaclimatejustice@googlegroups.com</a>>, Post WRI Cape Town 2014<br>
<<a href="mailto:southafrica2014conference@lists.wri-irg.org">southafrica2014conference@lists.wri-irg.org</a>><br>
Cc: Jai Sen <<a href="mailto:jai.sen@cacim.net">jai.sen@cacim.net</a>>, Richard Falk <<a href="mailto:rfalk@princeton.edu">rfalk@princeton.edu</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Saturday, 28 June 2014<br>
<br>
Resisting the War on Mother Earth, Reclaiming Our Home<br>
<br>
Continuing my posts in solidarity with the theme workshops on<br>
Resisting the War on Mother Earth, Reclaiming Our Home at the War<br>
Resisters’ International Conference taking place in Cape Town next<br>
week (July 4-8; <a href="http://wri-irg.org/southafrica2014" target="_blank">http://wri-irg.org/southafrica2014</a>), here is a classic<br>
essay by Jeremy Brecher that looks at what ‘needs to be done’ in the<br>
emerging context of climate-change-that-is-war – and that, the author<br>
argues, is already happening – and crucially, the moral and political<br>
principle underlying such action :<br>
<br>
“Protecting our climate requires more than lobbying and more than<br>
“civil disobedience.” It requires a new understanding of how we [can]<br>
relate to the law–and how can enforce it ourselves when governments<br>
fail.<br>
<br>
“When 30 climate protestors from 18 countries protested drilling at an<br>
Arctic oil platform operated by Gazprom, they represented the people<br>
of the world taking a symbolic stand against climate destruction, the<br>
corporate climate destroyers, and the governments that back them. But<br>
the action of the Arctic 30 may be prophetic of something more : The<br>
emergence of a global insurgency that challenges the very legitimacy<br>
of those who are destroying our planet.<br>
<br>
“Insurgencies are social movements, but movements of a special type :<br>
They reject current rulers’ claims to legitimate authority.<br>
Insurgencies often develop from movements that initially make no<br>
direct challenge to established authority but eventually conclude that<br>
one is necessary to realize their objectives. To effectively protect<br>
the earth’s climate and our species’ future, the climate protection<br>
movement may have to become such an insurgency.”<br>
<br>
For a full presentation, see the Foreign Policy In Focus report, "A<br>
Nonviolent Insurgency for Climate Protection?<br>
<br>
Richard Falk, a US American professor emeritus of international law<br>
and the UN Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the<br>
Palestinian territories occupied since <a href="tel:1967" value="+661967">1967</a>”, has the following<br>
comment on the full report :<br>
<br>
“I have just read your full discussion paper, ‘Global Nonviolent<br>
Law-Enforcing Insurgency..’. It is an exceptionally valuable<br>
contribution to thought, feeling, and action on this greatest<br>
challenge that has ever confronted humanity as a whole, and points to<br>
the biological vulnerability of the multiple fragmentations (state<br>
sovereignty, identity politics, nationalism, etc.) that structurally<br>
and ideologically inhibit the capacity to address the most urgent<br>
collective action problems.<br>
<br>
“Along these lines, the one area that you might consider adding some<br>
observations, that is, if you share my assessment is this : The<br>
failure to respond to the climate change challenge so far suggests a<br>
rather weak species will to survive. In other words, the human species<br>
seems vulnerable from this bio-political perspective that has not been<br>
previously at risk except possibly in relation to nuclear weaponry,<br>
and the evidence there is also not encouraging.”<br>
<br>
In my understanding, the arguments put forward by Jeremy<br>
Brecher in this paper and that underlie it – and, as above, as<br>
developed in his full report - provide a vital basis for the<br>
fundamental discussions that we need to have today of what we need to<br>
do in the world that we live in : At the WRI Conference in Cape Town,<br>
and elsewhere.<br>
<br>
JS<br>
<br>
(As added information, Jeremy Brecher has now expanded his arguments<br>
into a book due out later this year, presently titled ‘Climate<br>
Insurgency : Taking Charge Of Our Planet’.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Climate Protection : The New Insurgency<br>
<br>
Faced with the failure of conventional lobbying, the climate<br>
protection movement is now turning to mass civil disobedience—but we<br>
can take it further still.<br>
<br>
By Jeremy Brecher, December 10, 2013.<br>
<br>
This article is a joint publication of Foreign Policy In Focus and<br>
TruthOut. For a longer presentation, see the Foreign Policy In Focus<br>
report, “A Nonviolent Insurgency for Climate Protection?“ -<br>
<a href="http://fpif.org/nonviolent-insurgency-climate-protection/" target="_blank">http://fpif.org/nonviolent-insurgency-climate-protection/</a><br>
<br>
When 30 climate protestors from 18 countries protested drilling at an<br>
Arctic oil platform operated by Gazprom, they represented the people<br>
of the world taking a symbolic stand against climate destruction, the<br>
corporate climate destroyers, and the governments that back them. But<br>
the action of the Arctic 30 may be prophetic of something more: The<br>
emergence of a global insurgency that challenges the very legitimacy<br>
of those who are destroying our planet.<br>
<br>
The 2013 Fifth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<br>
confirmed that humans are destroying the earth’s climate. But it also<br>
revealed something even more alarming: Twenty-five years of human<br>
effort to protect the climate have failed even to slow the forces that<br>
are destroying it. On the contrary, the rate of increase in carbon<br>
emissions from burning fossil fuels tripled between the release of the<br>
first IPCC report in <a href="tel:1988" value="+661988">1988</a> and today.<br>
<br>
Scientists and climate protection advocates once expected that<br>
rational leaders and institutions would respond appropriately to the<br>
common threat of climate change. As Bill McKibben said of Jim Hansen<br>
and himself, “I think he thought, as did I, if we get this set of<br>
facts out in front of everybody, they’re so powerful — overwhelming —<br>
that people will do what needs to be done.”<br>
<br>
It didn’t work. Those who are fighting to save the climate need a new<br>
strategy. One such strategy to consider is a global nonviolent<br>
law-enforcing insurgency.<br>
<br>
A nonviolent insurgency<br>
<br>
Insurgencies are social movements, but movements of a special type:<br>
They reject current rulers’ claims to legitimate authority.<br>
Insurgencies often develop from movements that initially make no<br>
direct challenge to established authority but eventually conclude that<br>
one is necessary to realize their objectives. To effectively protect<br>
the earth’s climate and our species’ future, the climate protection<br>
movement may have to become such an insurgency.<br>
<br>
The term “insurgency” is generally associated with an armed rebellion<br>
against an established government. Its aim may be to overthrow the<br>
existing government, but it may also aim to change it or simply to<br>
protect people against it. Whatever its means and ends, the hallmark<br>
of such an insurgency is to deny the legitimacy of established state<br>
authority and to assert the legitimacy of its own actions.<br>
<br>
A nonviolent insurgency pursues similar objectives by different means.<br>
Like an armed insurgency, it does not accept the limits on its action<br>
imposed by the powers-that-be. But unlike an armed insurgency, it<br>
eschews violence and instead expresses power by mobilizing people for<br>
various forms of nonviolent mass action.<br>
<br>
After closely following the massive strikes, general strikes, street<br>
battles, peasant revolts, and military mutinies of the Russian<br>
Revolution of <a href="tel:1905" value="+661905">1905</a> that forced the czar to grant a constitution,<br>
Mohandas (not yet dubbed “Mahatma”) Gandhi concluded, “Even the most<br>
powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.” Shortly<br>
thereafter he launched his first civil disobedience campaign,<br>
proclaiming “We too can resort to the Russian remedy against tyranny.”<br>
<br>
The powers responsible for climate change could not rule for a day<br>
without the acquiescence of those whose lives and future they are<br>
destroying. They are only able to continue their destructive course<br>
because others enable or acquiesce in it. It is the ordinary activity<br>
of people — going to work, paying taxes, buying products, obeying<br>
government officials, staying off private property — that continually<br>
re-creates the power of the powerful. A nonviolent climate insurgency<br>
can be powerful if it withdraws that cooperation from the<br>
powers-that-be.<br>
<br>
Why a law-enforcing insurgency?<br>
<br>
Faced with the failure of conventional lobbying and political<br>
“pressure group” activity, much of the climate protection movement is<br>
now turning to mass civil disobedience, as witnessed by the campaigns<br>
against the Keystone XL pipeline, mountaintop removal coal mining,<br>
coal-fired power plants, and Arctic oil drilling. Such civil<br>
disobedience, while generally recognizing the legitimacy of the law,<br>
refuses to obey it in specific instances.<br>
<br>
Civil disobedience represents moral protest, but it does not in itself<br>
challenge the legal validity of the government or other institutions<br>
against which it is directed. Rather, it claims that the obligation to<br>
oppose their immoral actions — whether discriminating against a class<br>
of people or conducting an immoral war or destroying the climate — is<br>
more binding on individuals than the normal duty to obey the law.<br>
<br>
A law-enforcing insurgency goes a step further. It declares a set of<br>
laws and policies themselves illegal and sets out to establish law<br>
through nonviolent self-help. Such insurgents view those who they are<br>
disobeying as merely persons claiming to represent legitimate<br>
authority — but who are themselves violating the law under what’s<br>
known as “color of law,” or the false pretense of authority. So “civil<br>
disobedience” is actually obedience to law and a form of law<br>
enforcement.<br>
<br>
Social movements that engage in civil disobedience often draw strength<br>
from the claim that their actions are not only moral, but that they<br>
represent an effort to enforce fundamental legal and constitutional<br>
principles flouted by the authorities they are disobeying. And they<br>
strengthen a movement’s appeal to the public by presenting its action<br>
not as wanton law breaking but as an effort to rectify governments and<br>
institutions that are themselves in violation of the law.<br>
<br>
For the civil rights movement, the constitution’s guarantee of equal<br>
rights meant that sit-inners and freedom riders were not criminals but<br>
rather upholders of constitutional law. For the struggle against<br>
apartheid, racism was a violation of internationally guaranteed human<br>
rights. For war resisters from Vietnam to Iraq, the national and<br>
international laws forbidding war crimes defined civil disobedience<br>
not as interference with legal, democratic governments but rather as a<br>
legal obligation of citizens. For the activists of Solidarity, the<br>
nonviolent revolution that overthrew Communism in Poland was not<br>
criminal sedition but an effort to implement the international human<br>
and labor rights law ratified by their own government.<br>
<br>
These examples seem paradoxical. On the one hand, the movement<br>
participants appear to be resisting the constituted law and the<br>
officials charged with implementing it. On the other, they are<br>
claiming to act on the basis of law — in fact to be implementing the<br>
law themselves against the opposition of lawless states.<br>
<br>
Law professor and historian James Gray Pope has developed a concept of<br>
“constitutional insurgency” to understand such cases. A constitutional<br>
insurgency, or what might be called a “law-enforcing insurgency,” is a<br>
social movement that rejects current constitutional doctrine but that<br>
“rather than repudiating the Constitution altogether, draws on it for<br>
inspiration and justification.” Pope detailed how the American labor<br>
movement long insisted that the right to strike was protected by the<br>
13th amendment to the constitution, which forbade any form of<br>
“involuntary servitude.” Injunctions to limit strikes were therefore<br>
unconstitutional. Although courts disregarded this claim, the radical<br>
Industrial Workers of the World told its members to “disobey and treat<br>
with contempt all judicial injunctions,” and the “normally staid”<br>
American Federation of Labor maintained that a worker confronted with<br>
an unconstitutional injunction had an imperative duty to “refuse<br>
obedience and to take whatever consequences may ensue.”<br>
<br>
Why climate destruction is illegal<br>
<br>
The Justinian Code, issued by the Roman Emperor in 535 A.D., defined<br>
the concept of res communes (common things): “By the law of nature<br>
these things are common to mankind — the air, running water, the sea<br>
and consequently the shores of the sea.” The right of fishing in the<br>
sea from the shore “belongs to all men.”<br>
<br>
Based on the Justinian Code’s protection of res communes, governments<br>
around the world have long served as trustees for rights held in<br>
common by the people. In U.S. law this role is defined by the public<br>
trust doctrine, under which the government serves as public trustee on<br>
behalf of present and future generations. Even if the state holds<br>
title, the public is the “beneficial owner.” As trustee, the state has<br>
a “fiduciary duty” to the owner — a legal duty to act solely in the<br>
owners’ interest with “the highest duty of care.” The principle is<br>
recognized today in both common law and civil law systems in countries<br>
ranging from South Africa to the Philippines and from the United<br>
States to India.<br>
<br>
On Mother’s Day, 2011, the youth organization Kids vs. Global Warming<br>
organized the “iMatter March” of young people in 160 communities in 45<br>
countries, including the United States, Russia, Brazil, New Zealand,<br>
and Great Britain. Concurrently, the Atmospheric Trust Litigation<br>
Project brought suits and petitions on behalf of young people in all<br>
50 U.S. states to require the federal and state governments to fulfill<br>
their obligation to protect the atmosphere as a common property.<br>
Speaking to one of the rallies, 16-year-old Alec Loorz, founder of<br>
Kids v. Global Warming and lead plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit,<br>
said:<br>
<br>
Today, I and other fellow young people are suing the government, for<br>
handing over our future to unjust fossil fuel industries, and ignoring<br>
the right of our children to inherit the planet that has sustained all<br>
of civilization. The government has a legal responsibility to protect<br>
the future for our children. So we are demanding that they recognize<br>
the atmosphere as a commons that needs to be preserved, and commit to<br>
a plan to reduce emissions to a safe level.<br>
<br>
Loorz concluded: “The plaintiffs and petitioners on all the cases are<br>
young people. We are standing up for our future.”<br>
<br>
A trustee has “an active duty of vigilance to ‘prevent decay or waste’<br>
to the asset,” according to University of Oregon law professor Mary<br>
Christina Wood, whose new book Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a<br>
New Age lays out the legal basis for the suits. “Waste” means<br>
“permanently damage.” If the asset is wasted in the interest of one<br>
generation of beneficiaries over future generations, it is in effect<br>
an act of “generational theft.”<br>
<br>
Although so far the courts have turned down most of these atmospheric<br>
public trust suits, the decisions are being appealed. On October 3,<br>
2013, the Supreme Court of Alaska became the first state supreme court<br>
to hear such an appeal.<br>
<br>
A global climate insurgency<br>
<br>
Compelling as the logic of the atmospheric public trust argument may<br>
be, it is easy to imagine that many U.S. courts will refuse to force<br>
governments to meet such obligations. In a brief to dismiss the Kansas<br>
suit, lawyers called the claim “a child’s wish for a better world,”<br>
which is not something a court can do much about.<br>
<br>
The sad fact is that virtually all the governments on earth — and<br>
their legal systems — are deeply corrupted by the very forces that<br>
gain from destroying the global commons. They exercise illegitimate<br>
power without regard to their obligations to those they claim to<br>
represent, let alone to the common rights beneficiaries of other lands<br>
and future generations to whom they also owe “the highest duty of<br>
care.”<br>
<br>
But protecting the atmosphere is not just a matter for governments.<br>
Indeed, it is the failure of governments to protect the public trust<br>
that is currently prompting the climate-protection movement to turn to<br>
mass civil disobedience. Looked at from the perspective of the public<br>
trust doctrine, these actions are far from lawless. Indeed, they<br>
embody the effort of people around the world to assert their right and<br>
responsibility to protect the public trust. They represent people<br>
stepping in to provide law enforcement where corrupt and illegitimate<br>
governments have failed to meet their responsibility to do so.<br>
<br>
When the climate protection movement uses nonviolent direct action to<br>
protect the public trust, it is often confronted by government<br>
officials acting under color of law to perpetuate climate destruction.<br>
The Arctic 30 were held at gunpoint, for example, and charged with<br>
piracy. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, “Concern for the<br>
environment must not cover up unlawful actions.” A law-enforcing<br>
climate insurgency will answer: Concern for oil company profits must<br>
not cover up unlawful government complicity in destroying the<br>
atmospheric public trust.<br>
<br>
Jeremy Brecher is co-founder and core team member of the Labor Network<br>
for Sustainability. He is the author of more than a dozen books on<br>
labor and social movements and has received five regional Emmy awards<br>
for his documentary film work. An updated edition of his labor history<br>
Strike! (PM Press 2014) will include a new chapter on the working<br>
class mini-revolts of the 21st century.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>
</div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..</b></div><div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div>
</div>