No US Bases Campaign

No US Bases Campaign
Oscar Reyes and Naima Bouteldja
Transform! Newsletter No. 1, March 2004

The United States maintains 702 foreign military bases and facilities in 40 countries, and other forms of military presence in over 100 countries. There is a long history of local resistance to these facilities, and the No US Bases Campaign was inaugurated at the World Social Forum in Mumbai in 2004 to consolidate this activity at an international scale. This is the story of its formation. It is based on accounts by Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan of the Transnational Institute (TNI), and Rae Street of CND. It has also benefited greatly from the No US Bases Campaign’s own clear and transparent processes. A detailed report of the International Anti-US Bases Conference can be found here, and the campaign’s email lists are at http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/nousbases.

History

Although there has never previously been an international network against US bases, this new initiative is only the latest chapter in a long history of international peace movement collaboration. In the context of the Cold War this was particularly focussed on issues of disarmament, with annual European Nuclear Disarmament Conventions from 1981 to 1991.

A new round of pressure was initiated with the creation of Abolition 2000 in April 1995. Some of its initiatives have fed directly into the No US Bases Campaign and are intertwined with the situation in Iraq. For example, the idea of "citizens inspections" of military bases was first raised in 1998 while international attention was focused on the UNSCOM inspections in Iraq. This was subsequently taken up by the Citizens Inspections Working Group which, working under the auspices of Abolition 2000, was able to visit five European nuclear sites in 2003.

This international work complements longstanding and important campaigning efforts at a local level by communities affected by the presence of US bases. Several of these arise directly out of previous incarnations of the peace movement. The Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) in New Zealand, for example, traces its history to the 1960s movement against the Vietnam War – although, like many such campaigns, its immediate origins lie in the targeting of one particular base (Harewood).

The women’s movement has also played a key role, in part through the inspiration of the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, which was established following the deployment of US Cruise Missiles in Britain in 1981. As with many of the US weapons themselves, the focus of campaigning has shifted towards the Global South in recent years – a shift reflected, in part, by the presence of the East Asia-US Women’s Network Against Militarism at the 2004 WSF in Mumbai.

This long history of international campaigning and detailed local work provides solid foundation for the new global No US Bases Campaign.

Confronting Empire

The more immediate context for the emergence of the Campaign is, of course, the continued US-led ‘war on terror’. The US government has promoted a National Security Strategy based on pre-emption and this, in turn, has led to the largest redeployment of US military forces since the end of the Cold War. In particular, there has been an emphasis on the expansion of the network of US Bases to the former Soviet bloc, as well as constructing or re-establishing bases in several African and South-East Asian countries.

The discontent with US military supremacy was already growing, but got to a new high after the US/UK wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. The existence of US bases around the world is something the public is not generally aware of. But with these latest wars, bases were mentioned every day. New bases in Central Europe, the use of bases in Europe, the Middle East and Asia as departure points for offensive actions by the US/UK were in the news frequently. It created a broader awareness of the existence of a global network of US military presence. For the first time perhaps, "bases" became more generally connected to the war itself. Finally, this was helped of course by the fact that the current US government changed its policy articulation on its foreign military presence. The Bush government became much more open about its strategy of overwhelming military dominance globally, and projected widely its proposals for new Bases and new networks of Bases.
The Bush administration has aggressively defended the notion that all US bases are to be regarded as US sovereign territory and claims that its national security is in danger when actually it means its military presence in a given global region is in danger. This has also contributed to the widespread and growing popular resistance to the US Bases.
Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan

The anti-war movement and the NO US Bases Campaign

When the US military offensive in Iraq ended in April 2003, it was clear that this was not the end of either the ‘war on terror’ or the global expansion of US military dominance. But it did pose a series of strategic challenges to the anti-war movement, which had to find constructive avenues to continue its work and consolidate the impact of the Global Day of Action on 15 February 2003. The No US Bases Campaign is one product of this process.

Although the World and European Social Forums had been vital in consolidating international anti-war collaboration, the origins of the Campaign can actually be traced to two other strategic international conferences: the first Hemispheric Encounter against Militarisation, which was held in Chiapas, Mexico from 6-9 May 2003, and the Jakarta Peace Consensus, which took place in Jakarta, Indonesia from 19-21 May 2003.

The Chiapas encounter resolved to monitor the militarisation of the American continent and strengthen networks within the region and encouraging solidarity work with the wider world. What it proposed on a continental level, the Jakarta Peace Consensus proposed on a global level. It issued a statement of unity and a plan of anti-war action in the aftermath of the Iraq conflict which, amongst other things, called for "a strategic focus on the proliferation of US military bases around the world."

From Jakarta to Mumbai

The Jakarta Peace Consensus Conference was jointly convened by Focus on the Global South, FNBPI and Increase (Indonesia) and the Transnational Institute (TNI). Two of these organisations (Focus and the TNI) have a great deal of experience in international networks and the WSF organising process, and helped to convene an open working group to plan for the formal launch of the Campaign at the WSF 2004 in Mumbai.

An open coordinating group was established after the Jakarta Conference. This led to an extensive e-mail list through which the preparations were made for the WSF.
Later, in sub-groups, the content, financial planning, publicity and organisation of the network and the sessions at the WSF were planned in telephone conferences and via e-mail. Again, this coordinating group remains a very open concept. There was feedback to the general list constantly and everybody was free to join the coordinating group.
Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan

The connection between this initial network and other groups was consolidated at subsequent international meetings of the global anti-war movement, including those held at Cancún in September 2003 to coincide with the WTO ministerial meeting. A parallel Spanish email list was set up to disseminate information about local and national campaigns against US bases and facilitate international co-ordination. An exercise to map the spread of US bases was also initiated. The Asian Peace Alliance decided to prioritise the campaign, whilst the Greek Social Forum co-ordinated a seminar on US bases at the November 2003 European Social Forum.

WSF Mumbai: education and strategy

The Global Anti-War Assembly at the WSF in Mumbai was another key moment in the emergence of the Campaign. It organised two conferences of its own, which gathered 121 participants from 31 countries over its two sessions. The first of these was billed as an Educational Session and Information Exchange. The opening remarks were given by Joseph Gerson of the American Friends Service Committee, who is also the editor of an important book on the politics of US bases. He outlined the historic link between US market expansion and military bases and how this nexus operates today. Subsequent speakers also took up this theme, treating the issue of US foreign military presence as part of the larger process of corporate-driven globalization and the resistance to it. Contributions ranged from accounts of the use of debt relief and trade negotiations to leverage governments into hosting the US military, to accounts of social movement victories against the bases (such as in Vieques, Puerto Rico).

The second session at the WSF was a strategy session. This discussed what the objectives of the network should be, what specific projects need to be undertaken, and how best to work together. It emphasised concrete and feasible projects, and investigated how these might best be implemented.

A very thorough and useful report from the meeting was prepared by Andres Conteris (Nonviolence International, US), Ben Moxham, Herbert Docena (both Focus on the Global South), and Wilbert van der Zeijden (Transnational Institute). It identified the following outcomes:

As priorities, it was suggested that the group should refine the meaning of "US military presence," continue to monitor US bases around the world, as well as map the growing resistance to them. For the network to mobilize more people, a website was deemed necessary and the list-serve must be expanded. Participation in the March 20 Global Day of Action was highly encouraged. The best date for an International Day of Action against US Bases is still being debated.
Andres Conteris, Ben Moxham, Herbert Docena, Wilbert van der Zeijden

Several concrete outcomes followed from the conference, with a ‘point-person’ identified in each case as the initial contact for a particular aspect of the network’s activities. Research and education were acknowledged to be vital, which meant continuing the work of local groups in monitoring the bases, but also the sharing of knowledge about successful anti-bases campaigns in order to help identify the factors that bring about base closures. Plans were laid to hold a conference specifically on bases. A book on resistance to bases is being prepared, and there was a resolve to continue to map the spread of US bases and the patterns of resistance to them.

The Campaign also made concrete plans to continue and improve its communications before and after the forum. It was felt that the email lists had been a highly effective means for building the network, and that these should be maintained and expanded (the email list currently contains 256 members). The Campaign decided to launch a multilingual website to provide information on US bases as well as on the emerging campaign network. This will both be used as a feedback site for existing campaigners and as a means of outreach to the public. Each base-affected community will prepare a concise history to be placed on the website, which will also include links to other struggles, bibliographic and educational resources, and a calendar of events.

Various plans were also made for anti-bases protests, including a direct action plan to take a Peace Flotilla to Diego Garcia (background information on this campaign was circulated to the No US Bases email list in advance of the Forum). The conference discussed its relation to the March 20 Global Day of Action Against War, and proposed an International Day of Action against US Bases. Several participants proposed 4th July, in order to highlight the anti-bases language in the US Declaration of Independence and use it against the US government, but others expressed reservations and a final decision was deferred.

In the case of both the conference on bases and the Global Day of Action, no final decisions were taken because it was felt to be important to consult those involved in the network that could not make it to Mumbai.

Those plans could not be conclusively be decided without allowing members of the network not attending the WSF to give their opinion. We decided that the WSF participants should not override the opinion of the wider network and therefore broader consultation is underway through the email listserve.
Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan

Consideration on the uses of the WSF

Viewed against a backdrop of international collaboration, long running local campaigns and the articulation between anti-bases activity and wider social justice issues, it would be risky to assert that the WSF process has brought about something radically new. Nevertheless, it has helped clearly to accelerate and ‘globalise’ new ways of working, which have also developed since the advent of the Internet. This combination of web-based exchanges and face-to-face meetings at the WSF is a promising one, according to Rae Street, Chair of Greater Manchester CND in the UK and a Vice President of the International Peace Bureau.

You can certainly see how the ‘common space’ of the WSF is allowing a network not only to be established but developing a resistance programme of actions. This is of course enormously aided by the development of the internet and, for the Forum, the ability and willingness to travel long distances (with everyone feeling very guilty about the environmental impact of air travel!). The WSF does provide a physical space, and it is trite but true that there is an added depth of understanding when people meet together face-to-face rather than faceless over the Internet. I think too the WSF has fostered a refreshing change in international gatherings in that the voices of the north American or the European are in the minority.
Rae Street

Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan also affirm the importance of face-to-face meetings, and note that the WSF provides an ideal location for these to happen without the difficulty and additional expense of organising a separate global conference.

The WSF is one point of major convergence for the network. However, we would say that it is the Peace movements and anti-war networks and campaigns which enhance and give density to the WSF. For a global network this big, it is important to meet and discuss face to face once in a while. But for a loose network like the No US Bases network, it is very difficult to organise and finance a global conference. So the WSF offers a perfect opportunity to have network meetings. Most of the people attending were planning to attend the WSF anyway, which provided the possibility for Plenary Sessions of the Global Assembly against the War as well as a series of specific strategy session on specific campaigns, including the US Bases.
Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan

It is important, then, to see the WSF as a vital space for political convergences and face-to-face meetings – although it is far from the only one. The successful launch of the network relied on the use of the WSF as just one element of an ongoing process, and must be seen as part of a far wider series of international meetings and encounters. It has also been sustained by well-rooted local work against US bases.

There are solid grounds for optimism that this campaigning network will be able to go forward with its initial ‘projects’. The network seems to be a good mix of organisations experienced in running global campaigns as well as having many very active local campaigns willing to exchange information and willing to link their activities to those developed on a global level.
The WSF has many limitations (and there are broad debates on-going about these – ranging from the ‘anarchy’ of events to perceptions that some political organisations or movements want a ‘leading position’ within the WSF processes, etc). But in relation to such a network as the No US Bases Campaign, the WSF with its commitment to an open democratic space provides a very empowering venue. The WSF can never substitute for the national and regional based movements, but the dialectical encounter at the WSF certainly gives new dynamism and commitment to the building of a global campaign.
Wilbert van der Zijden and Brid Brennan