Yes, one of many that has been one brewing for quite sometime at Cities for Progress, and I’m sure in the heads of those at Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) their parent organization. The Whatcom Peace and Justice Center called their version the “No War Against Iran” resolution and has over the last month or so gotten it in front of Mayor Pike and as Sam Taylor reported, tomorrow it is on the Bellingham City Council’s agenda. If you’d like to read it, a copy of the resolution is in the COB agenda for tomorrow’s meeting.
For the last week or so, I looked at the resolution and set about to argue some of the resolution’s points like this one,
5. WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the
consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze
its nuclear weapons program in 2003,
My argument went like this,
Yes, indeed, the NIE confirmed that Iran had a vigorous nuclear weapons program that was suspended in late 2003. Coincidentally, it was just after we invaded Iraq and President Bush drew a line in the sand for Iran. The National Intelligence Estimate also says that they don’t expect Iran to “forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons.”
If the NIE expects Iran to continue it’s nuclear program, I expect my government to apply whatever diplomatic and/or military means necessary for our safety.
But after going through most of the 12 Whereas’s in the resolution, my head went back to the same spot. Conservative, moderate, or liberal; nobody in their right mind desires war with any nation, so arguing the points is rather silly. I agree, let’s work to avoid war with Iran. I happen to think that the UN, the US and many other countries have been tirelessly using diplomacy for decades, but there I go again arguing points. What bothers me about this resolution and the troops home resolution before it, is that they are subversive to our established participatory government and the groups promoting them have a bigger agenda than just this situation in the Middle East.
IPS founded the Transnational Institute (TNI) in 1973 to bring together public scholars from around the world to tackle the growing divide between rich and poor nations and peoples around the world.
It’s okay to read this as promoting socialism and communism, because it is, and that is the bigger agenda.
To the point of subversion, which can be a tough to grasp in this setting, but I’ve highlighted a few words in this,
This is the origin of its modern use, which refers to attempts to overthrow structures of authority, including the state. In this respect, it has taken over from ‘sedition’ as the name for illicit rebellion, though the connotations of the two words are rather different, sedition suggesting overt attacks on institutions, subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other. answers.com
So subversion is about overthrowing the structures of authority and upsetting the status quo, the way we do things. One might ask how that applies here since this appears to be on the up and up with it going before the COB for review. But our structure of authority, the way we do things, is that for national matters, we voters elect a president and representatives to Congress. That is how our nation works so that everyone gets a fair vote.
We may not always like what our representatives do, but within the structure of our government there is a remedy for that situation. We individual voters who they represent, can urge them to change their position and with enough voter support, they can be replaced during the next election cycle. To work outside this established system erodes our form of democracy and is plainly subversive. A few points in the resolution also plainly support subversion.
13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham hereby urges
the Bush Administration…
14. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham urges Congress…
There is no structure of authority on national matters between the City of Bellingham and the President’s administration. There is no structure of authority on national matters between the City of Bellingham and Congress that we individual voters elected as our representation. Why should the City of Bellingham urge my representatives to do anything? Marie Marchand and Gene Marx of the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center said it all in a Herald opinion piece.
So why, you ask, is the city council stepping in once again to consider another resolution, this time opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran?
Simple. If our local elected officials won’t, then who will?
They don’t approve and/or their parent group doesn’t approve of the actions taken by the representatives we elected, so they are using the City of Bellingham in an attempt to get a louder voice. Essentially to yell over and drown out our individual voices in our government.
Their is no voter ballot signed by the City of Bellingham. No, my representatives represent me, not the City of Bellingham. We should all be infuriated with any group, including the City of Bellingham, who attempts to diminish our voice in our government.
I don’t live in Bellingham and even if I did, The City of Bellingham should mind their own business and stay out of my business with my my elected representation.
Additional links of interest
- Latte Republic: Concurrent House Resolution 362 on Iran – or, can someone explain why we’re spending City tax dollars on an impotent resolution?
- WallyWondersWhy: Words to Remember