Dear Friends,
Here's info re: the official S.C. stance on war with Iraq.
Comments appreciated. I'm think overall its good and I'm
glad the leadership finally decided to address this
pressing situation which has the potential for some very
serious environmental consequences.
JIm Fleming
--- Charles Winterwood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:17:00 -0800
> From: Charles Winterwood <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Fwd: Club stance on Iraq
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> -
> >Recent press stories, most notably one in the Los
> > Angeles Times, have
> > misrepresented the Club's position on the issue of
> > possible war with Iraq.
> > We have received a large number of complaints from
> > members and others
> > regarding this issue, and we want each of you to
> > have the facts, both for
> > your own information and so that you can set the
> > record straight with other
> > friends of the Club who may be concerned.
> >
> > It is important to note that the Club resolution
> > calls for a peaceful
> > resolution of the crisis, calls on all parties,
> > including Iraq and the
> > United States, to adhere to UN Security Council
> > resolutions, and
> > specifically identifies the need to reduce American
> > dependence on oil to
> > diminish the risk of future conflicts. We are
> > attaching a letter to the
> > editor of the LA Times written by Sierra Club
> > President Jennifer Ferenstein
> > which includesd the full text of the Club's policy
> > in the Iraq situation:
> >
> >
> > To the Editor:
> >
> > Your article today ("Sierra Club Rift Opens Over
> > Stance on Iraq") was flat
> > wrong in claiming the Sierra Club has "avoid[ed] a
> > formal stance on the war
> > issue" in Iraq. In fact, our volunteer leaders had
> > a lengthy, open and
> > intense debate on the issue. Our Board of
> > Directors, elected directly by
> > our 700,000 members, passed the following
> > resolution:
> >
> > "The Sierra Club is concerned about the global
> > dangers presented by
> > possible Iraqi aggression and about the dire
> > environmental consequences of
> > war. The Sierra Club supports disarming Iraq of
> > weapons of mass
> > destruction. The Sierra Club commends the US and
> > the other United Nations
> > Security Council members for their unanimous
> > resolution calling for the
> > restoration of the disarmament inspections process
> > as a means of achieving
> > a peaceful resolution of the Iraq issue, and it
> > urges all nations to work
> > through the UN to achieve this objective. The
> > process of inspection should
> > go forward immediately with, and pursuant to,
> > international consensus as
> > expressed in the UN Security Council resolution.
> >
> > "Even if the UN succeeds, however, this process will
> > be incomplete if the
> > US and other nations fail to recognize that their
> > continued dependence on
> > oil and other fossil fuels is, itself, a significant
> > de-stabilizing
> > influence in international affairs. The Sierra Club
> > therefore, reaffirms
> > its urgent call for the US to move to a clean energy
> > economy, greater
> > efficiency, and use of renewable sources of energy."
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jennifer Ferenstein
> > Sierra Club President
> >
> > II. The Club position on war in general
> >
> > Some of the letters have also questioned whether the
> > Club failed to
> > understand the environmental destruction caused by
> > war. The Club's overall
> > stance on the environmental impacts of warfare is
> > set out in a resolution,
> > passed by the International Unions for the
> > Conservation of Nature, and
> > later endorsed by the Club, which is excerpted here:
> >
> > "Concerned that man's future and that of his
> > environment is endangered by
> > war and other hostile actions that negatively offset
> > the economic and
> > ecological situation, including
> >
> > * diverting large quantities of monetary and
> > natural resources for
> > armaments,
> > * discharging toxic and radioactive waste in
> > the human environment,
> > * destroying the habitats that are necessary
> > for species
> > conservation;
> >
> > ...
> > The General Assembly of IUCN, at its 15th Session
> > in Christchurch, New
> > Zealand, 11-23 October 1981:
> >
> > Affirms that peace is a contributory condition to
> > the conservation of
> > nature, just as conservation itself contributes to
> > peace through the
> > proper and ecologically sound use of natural
> > resources;
> >
> > Calls upon all States to pursue diligently
> > international discussions in
> > the United Nations and other fora dedicated to the
> > maintenance of peace
> > and security within and between all States;
> >
> > Further calls upon all governments to give full
> > effect to existing
> > international agreements that contribute to the
> > maintenance of peace and
> > the reduction of global armaments."
> >
> > III. The Press statement from the Glen Canyon Group
> >
> > A third element in this controversy is that four
> > leaders of the Glen Canyon
> > Group issued a press release in which they
> > criticized the Club's resolution
> > for not going far enough, and asserted that the
> > Board's guideline that Club
> > entities wishing to speak on the issue of Iraq
> > should do so in a manner
> > that was consistent with the Club's policy
> > constituted a "gag order." They
> > claimed that the Club was trying to prevent Club
> > members from speaking out
> > in accordance with their consciences on Iraq, and
> > declared they were acting
> > to "defy" the Board resolution.
> >
> > The Board's resolution does not attempt in any way
> > to gag individual Club
> > members from speaking on Iraq in any fashion they
> > desire. It simply says
> > that any Club entity -- a chapter or group -- which
> > wishes to express the
> > Club's position on Iraq, must do so accurately and
> > in a manner consistent
> > with the Club's adopted policy. Many outsiders do
> > not understand that the
> > Sierra Club is not a federation, but one Club, and
> > that chapters and groups
> > do not adopt independent and conflicting positions
> > on issues, but work to
> > shape the position adopted by the entire Club.
> >
> > These four individuals, are, of course, free to
> > adopt whatever personal
> > posture they desire on Ira. We have informed them,
> > however, they are not
> > free to have their Group adopt a different position
> > on Iraq than the rest
> > of the Club, any more than a Group whose leaders
> > might be in favor of
> > immediate invasion of Iraq as more likely to avoid a
> > larger war later would
> > not be free to take that position in the name of the
> > Club.
> >
> > This is simply a matter of how the Club works, how
> > its members, in adopting
> > its basic structure, have chosen for it to work.
> > Other organizations may
> > work differently, but the issue here is not freedom
> > of speech or censorship
> > -- all Club members are free to speak their mind --
> > but the use of the
> > Club's name. The Club's name can only be used to
> > advocate the Club's
> > positions, to avoid having the Club be presented
> > publicly as being on both
> > sides of an issue.
> >
> > If you see further examples of this misunderstanding
> > of the Club's
> > position, please use this memo to help set the
> > record straight.
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> >
> > Carl Pope
> > Executive Director
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > - - - - - -
> > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions,
> > see:
> > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - -
> To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
