Anti-war chapter stands up to Sierra Club board
By Leslie Feinberg
Why on earth is the venerable and heavily endowed Sierra
Club threatening to disband its Utah chapter?
Are they renegades who spilled an ocean of crude oil,
despoiling endangered wildlife preserves? Did they net dolphins
in the race for a lucrative sea harvest? Did they filibuster on
behalf of gasoline-guzzling SUVs? Argue against wind and solar
power?
Pooh-pooh the perilous thinning of the ozone layer? Take a
chain saw to old-growth redwoods?
No, that's Dubya's "Earth Last" milieu.
Here's why the heretical board members of the Sierra Club's
175-member Glen Canyon chapter in southern Utah drew the ire of
the 15-member executive board of the country's oldest
environmental group: They spoke out against one of the gravest
threats to this planet and its populations--Pentagon war.
"War is not healthy for children and other living things,"
the dissident group's secretary Dan Kent explained succinctly
in a recently issued statement. "It is the ultimate act of
environmental destruction. ... For the board to compel our
silence plays right into Bush's mad world, where a nation of
police, prisons, bombs, bunkers is better than lowering oneself
to diplomacy to save lives."
The Utah chapter notes that back in 1981, the Sierra Club
did pass an anti-war resolution, bolstered by the consensus
that war brings with it dire environmental consequences.
Yet in October, when 13 former Sierra Club board members
closed ranks with the Utah activists to ask for a formal
statement against U.S. saber-rattling at Iraq, leaders of the
700,000-member organization instead adopted a resolution that
"supports disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
Anyone honestly searching for weapons that could explode the
planet into smither eens would not have to leave the confines
of the continental United States.
Heaped on top of the capitulation to Washington's dogs of
war was another resolution that immediately followed--this one
"clarifying" the 1981 statement as having been a "broad general
policy framework" that "does not authorize members, leaders or
club entities to take positions on military conflicts."
The anti-war apostates characterize this tacked-on language
as a gag order.
Glen Canyon board member Patrick Diehl lambasted the
national board's action as "extremely divisive," concluding, "I
sincerely believe that the majority agrees with our position. I
think we are expressing the general disagreement with the
board's action."
Reprinted from the Dec. 19, 2002, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyrighted
under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe to WW by Email: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Donate to
support pro-labor, anti-war news.
Email
this article
Printable
page