Security Without Empire: National Organizing Conference on Foreign Military Bases

[rossana <rossana at comodinoposta.org>]

Security Without Empire: National Organizing Conference on Foreign 
Military Bases

http://fsrn.org/audio/activists-urge-end-us-foreign-military-bases/4294
http://mamaradio.blogspot.com/2009/02/security-without-empire-put-end-to.html
http://www.no-bases.net/

Nei giorni dal 27 febbraio al 2 marzo 2009 presso l'American University, 
Washington, DC si è tenuto l'incontro - Sicurezza senza impero: 
Conferenza Nazionale Organizzativa sulla basi militari straniere - di 
cui mando un estratto:


Security without Empire: National Organizing Conference on Foreign 
Military Bases
American University
February 27-29th, 2009
Strategy Submissions February 2009
1. Bases Treaty Strategy
Submitted by Al Marder, US Peace Institute
Contact: 203 387-0370, E-mail amistad.nai at rcn.com

We recognize that the main opposition to foreign bases lies within 
national borders. The people in each country affected must develop broad 
patriotic opposition to the presence of foreign troops. We, in the 
United States, must develop that movement here as an integral part of 
our opposition to the policies of imperialism, policies of military, 
economic and political aggression that have resulted in the complete 
militarization of our country, wars of aggression and financial crisis 
in our country.
We are proposing another track for publicizing and mobilizing around the 
issue; a model treaty to be presented to the United Nations forbidding 
the establishment of permanent foreign military bases in a sovereign 
country. We fully realize that such a treaty will have a very hard row 
to hoe since some countries are complicit in inviting foreign bases onto 
their soil. We realize too that some will argue that it is the sovereign 
right of a country to determine whether they will invite foreign troops 
onto their country. There are undoubtedly other arguments that will be 
made against such a universal treaty. None of them can offset the basic 
reality that foreign bases are a threat to world peace and to the people 
whose lands they occupy.
The very existence of such a legal instrument and the campaign to make 
it a binding Treaty can serve to bring the issue to the fore in every 
capitol and mission. It will serve to expose the dangers of foreign 
bases. It can stimulate debate in decision making circles. MOST 
IMPORTANT IT PROVIDES A DOCUMENT THAT WILL ALLOW ACTIVISTS TO POUND ON 
THE DOORS OF GOVERNMENTS. IT WILL PLACE THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN BASES ON 
THE TABLE, FINALLY MAKING THE GLOBAL PUBLIC AWARE OF THE DANGERS OF 
FOREIGN BASES.
In our discussion, we raised the possibility that the US Conference on 
Foreign Bases would consider authoring such a document as a concrete 
contribution to the global campaign against foreign bases, It would have 
historic significance that such an initiative emanated in the United 
States, the perpetrator of almost 1,000 bases It would be a signal 
contribution from the peace movement in the United States.

2. Bases and Prostitution
Submitted by Debra McNutt
E-mail: debimcnutt at gmail.com
1. What are your goals for U.S. bases in your state? (region? area?)

I have been researching and writing on whether civilian contractors are 
enabling military sexual exploitation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
Muslim countries. My research project is investigating new patterns of 
sexual exploitation of Third World women by the U.S. military, and how 
institutionalized prostitution has changed as U.S. forces have been 
stationed in Muslim countries (such as Iraq). I am especially interested 
in the possible role of civilian contractors in importing foreign women 
into U.S. war zones under the guise of employment as "cooks and maids." 
In the 1980s I was a member of the Friends of GABRIELA and the Alliance 
for Philippine Concerns, which worked against sexual exploitation of 
Filipinas near U.S. military bases. Recently I have worked on the case 
of Army soldier Suzanne Swift and issues of sexual harassment and 
assault within the military.

2. What are your group's main activities regarding anti-bases organizing?
As a student at The Evergreen State College in 2007, I conducted 
research into the Importation of Women into U.S. War Zones--such as 
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and particularly Iraq. I initially 
published an on-line article summarizing my research findings, which was 
published on Counterpunch, CommonDreams, and many other websites: 
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcnutt07112007.html All or part of the 
article was translated into seven languages (Spanish, Italian, German, 
Portuguese, Turkish, Bosnian, and Indonesian): In September 2007, I 
wrote a longer 51-page report Privatizing Women: Prostitution and the 
Iraq Occupation my findings on how military prostitution has grown in 
Muslim countries, partly due to the growth of global human trafficking 
and private security contractors. The report was dedicated to the women 
of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the foreign women trafficked in U.S. war 
zones. The report was also dedicated to Saralee Hamilton of AFSC, who 
was always an incredibly valuable resource. Maria Pappalardo was also 
also extremely helpful in my most recent research.

3. How can activist networks in other countries contribute to your 
group's work?

I would appreciate any specific information or sources about the general 
methods used by the U.S. military to provide foreign women to its 
personnel in Iraq or other Muslim states. Specifically, I am interested 
in information or sources on the role of private contractors in 
importing foreign women into U.S. war zones, and rsearch 
resources/articles or contact information for individuals or groups who 
would have insights to this process. I intend for my research to expose 
any private contractors involved in military sex trafficking, and 
support the women who are exploited for military purposes.

4. What activities and strategies would you/your group like to see as 
part of a
coordinated international movement against U.S. bases?

Military prostitution is not the same as it was in the 20th century. 
This century has seen three major changes that make researching and 
responding to the exploitation of women much more challenging. First, 
U.S. troops are now stationed in Muslim countries, making open 
prostitution for the troops less possible. Yet I have found reports of 
brothels within the Green Zone itself, disguised as restaurants, 
hairdressers, or even a women’s shelter. Second, globalization has 
created a wave of international human trafficking. Women who are 
trafficked into Iraq for sex slavery—such as Chinese, Filipinas, 
Iranians, and Eastern Europeans--probably arrive through same 
"pipelines" as illegally trafficked workers. Many Iraqi refugee women 
and kidnapped girls have also been forced into prostitution in Syria and 
Jordan. Third, prostitution in Iraq appears to be more about the private 
contractors, rather than the troops. Contractors brag on sex websites 
about other contractors delivering Iraqi women to them, or taking them 
to private apartments. The highly paid contractors go to Dubai or Jordan 
for R&R. Now that it is too dangerous to move around in Arab Iraq, they 
also head for the northern Kurdish region.

These changes necessitate different approaches by the women’s, human 
rights, and antiwar movements. Many facts about prostitution in Iraq 
have been documented in the mainstream press, but the nothing has been 
done to protect these women and children, or to examine the possible 
links to the U.S. military and its contractors. It has been difficult 
for myself (and other researchers and journalists) to get to the bottom 
of this crisis. The question of who is behind the trafficking of people 
is as hard to crack as the trafficking of drugs (if not more so). It is 
difficult enough to track the widespread illegal trafficking of workers 
to Iraq. But the trafficking of Iraqi or foreign women for prostitution 
is even better concealed. The prostitution rings keep their tracks well 
hidden, and it is not in the interest of the military or its private 
contractors to reveal any information that may damage the war effort.

The fact that information is difficult to find, however, is a reason to 
intensify the search and make military prostitution a major women’s and 
antiwar issue. We need an information sharing network, and a forum for 
these women to be able to speak out and expose the abuses. It is our tax 
dollars that fuel the war in Iraq, and if women are exploited as a 
result of the occupation, we owe it to them to take responsibility for 
these crimes. My ultimate purpose is doing this research is not only to 
help expose these crimes against women, but to help build a movement to 
stop them. The media coverage of Iraqi women focuses only on their 
oppression by Iraqi men and Muslim society, not on how the U.S. 
occupation has worsened historic oppressions, and created new 
oppressions that destroy women’s self-worth.
3. STRATEGY PAPER FROM G.I. VOICE
Submitted by Zoltan Grossman
E-mail grossmaz at evergreen.edu

1. What are your goals for U.S. bases in your state? (region? area?)
G.I. Voice is a veteran-led nonprofit project that recently opened a 
G.I. coffeehouse just outside the gates of Fort Lewis (between Tacoma 
and Olympia WA), the largest Army base on the West Coast. More 
information can be found at http://www.givoice.org See media coverage below.
Mission Statement: "The wars that the United States is involved in are 
taxing on service members and their families. The purpose of GI Voice is 
to provide us with a place to freely express ourselves on the subject. 
It is also a place for information on GI rights and a link to 
organizations that offer solutions to families and service members in 
the military. We believe that by sharing our experiences, educating 
ourselves, and acting in support of each other we can bring about the 
change necessary to create a livable world."

2. What are your group's main activities regarding anti-bases organizing?
The Coffee Strong cafe (spoofing the recruitment slogan "Army Strong") 
opened on Election Day 2008. It is only the second G.I. coffeehouse to 
open in the country since the Vietnam War, and includes computers for 
soldiers to access the Internet without Army interference. The historic 
project is also starting a website and planning a radio webstream, to 
use 21st-century outreach tools to connect with soldiers and their 
families. Modeled after the coffeehouse movement from the 1960s, the 
goal of this cafe is to provide soldiers, their families and recent vets 
a place away from the base where they can learn about resources 
available to them, meet with G.I. Rights Counselors, and access 
alternative information. In addition to this, the coffeehouse holds 
weekly movie nights, concerts and other events.
The base is scheduled to deploy 10,000 more troops, including two 
Stryker Brigades, to Iraq in the upcoming months. Over the past two 
years, large actions have protested the movement of Stryker armored 
vehicles through local ports to and from Iraq.
"Geographies of Resistance around Fort Lewis, Washington"
(mass blockades of Stryker deployments, Watada court martial, GI 
Voice/IVAW organizing)
Webpage: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/port.html
Powerpoint: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/fortlewis.ppt

3. How can activist networks in other countries contribute to your 
group's work?
Any kind of support would help the outreach effort to U.S. military 
personnel and their families. Tax-deductible donations can be made to 
the GI Voice project: "Seattle Draft & Military Counseling Center" or 
simply "SDMCC," and mailed to G.I. Voice, PO Box 99404, Lakewood WA 
98496 USA. Organizations around the world could help GI Voice set up a 
radio webstream that could be accessed by GIs around the world, to 
receive alternative sources of information and culture. Equipment and 
donations could help this effort immensely.

4. What activities and strategies would you/your group like to see as 
part of a
coordinated international movement against U.S. bases?

But more importantly, peace organizations should coordinate their 
efforts to do outreach to GIs around the world. At least four GI 
coffeehouses are starting in the US, and others could be started abroad, 
in countries such as Germany that are transshipment points to the Middle 
East. Literature developed by US veterans about GI rights, war and peace 
could be distributed to GIs to build a bridge to them, and communicate 
with them in an approach that would seem familiar to their experiences 
and culture.

Peace organizations should also educate themselves about issues of 
concern to soldiers--such as Stop-Loss, repression of their 
constitutional rights, sexual harassment and rape, and health and safety 
conditions--to open respectful dialogue with GIs on their concerns. The 
purpose is not to reform the military into a more effective fighting 
machine. Rather, once service members are actively struggling with their 
command around issues of working conditions and health care, they will 
start to see the connections between the occupation of other countries 
and their own oppression here in the United States.

4. Proposals for U.S. – Czech cooperation to defeat the “missile 
defense“ radar in the Czech Republic
No to Bases Civic Initiative, Czech Republic

1. On NEZA and current situation in the Czech Republic
NEZA has been struggling against the “missile defense” radar project 
since summer 2006 when the issue was leaked to the public for the first 
time at the closing moments of Czech parliamentary elections in June 2006.
Main arguments raised by NEZA against the project:
• The project is totally illegitimate as the whole political 
establishment had been trying to sweep the problem under the carpet and 
effectively blocked any discussion on his issue before elections. No 
political party has got any mandate from the electorate to accept the 
U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic.
• The general public has been consistently and overwhelmingly refusing 
the project since it became known, in spite of heavy pro-radar 
propaganda efforts by the government, the mainstream media and U.S. 
ambassador Mr. Graber. The figures provided by public opinion polls have 
been very stable: about two thirds of population is against the base.
• There is a democratic deficit on this issue. Hence the call by NEZA 
for a national referendum. Again, more than 70 per cent of the 
population has been supporting this requirement according to the opinion 
polls and the support is very stable.
• The alleged threats mentioned as reasons for establishing the base 
(North Korea, Iran) are not credible. The Czech government has tried to 
raise the specter of Russian threat instead, so far without influencing 
the public opinion in any substantial way. The base would provide no 
defense against real threats that might eventually arise (terrorism); it 
even might create new threats. The whole argument in favor of the radar 
is unconvincing, inconsistent, and lacking a clear rationale.
• On the other hand, the radar would increase international tension in 
our region without any reasonable purpose and to the detriment of Czech 
national interests. (In the meantime, this is already becoming reality).
• Given the experience from the U.S. interventions in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the Czech Republic could be involved – even against its own 
will or unknowingly – in a military adventure or aggression.

Developments and current situation:
• A broad movement against the radar base has emerged in the Czech 
Republic including a number of civic initiatives and two large 
opposition parties. NEZA alone has collected about 140,000 signatures 
under the petition in favor of the national referendum (a formal 
hard-copy petition according to the Czech petition law). The total 
number of signatures under diverse hard-cover petitions against radar 
and in favor of the referendum can be estimated at about 300,000 – a 
very strong result for a nation of 10 millions. A large number of 
diverse public demonstrations, happenings, conferences etc. have been 
conducted throughout the country during last two and half years. As a 
whole, the country is decidedly against the radar.
• The government has systematically refused to take into account the 
objections coming from the civic movements and general public, and has 
been trying – in vain so far – to discredit the opponents. It keeps 
disregarding the Czech citizens, occasionally showing its utter disdain 
of the people. The two agreements with the current U.S. administration 
concerning the base were signed by the government last year.
• The governmental parties suffered a humiliating defeat in the regional 
elections last November. The radar policies of the government 
undoubtedly contributed to this.
• Last December, the radar agreements were ratified by the Senate – the 
upper house of the Czech Parliament where the government still has 
sufficient majority.
• However, the most substantial political decision is still pending – 
the ratification of the agreements by the Chamber of Deputies, the lower 
house of the Czech Parliament. The position of the government is very 
shaky and uncertain there and the outcome of the vote is far from 
granted. The discussion on the radar has been postponed several times 
and it is scheduled for next February now (after the swearing-in of Mr. 
Obama into the office of the U.S. President). Sharp conflict is expected 
to develop around this issue in the Chamber of Deputies.
• Some positive tendencies should be noted that have emerged recently in 
the European politics. Important public figures, research centers, and 
study groups have been criticizing the excessive reliance on purely 
military actions and policies in security matters and recommending a 
more consistent diplomatic and political effort (e.g., the recent 
declaration by four German elder statesmen, or the development of a 
“European way of security” concept). This might help creating atmosphere 
conducive to the movement for abolishing foreign military bases in 
Europe and globally.

2. Some remarks on possible U.S. – Czech cooperation in the efforts 
against the “missile defence” radar
We feel that the basic line of argument developed by NEZA (the stress on 
the negative impact of the base on democracy within the Czech Republic 
and on security and peace both internally and globally) should be 
followed and developed further according to circumstances. Diverse lines 
of argument have been developed by other groups (negative impact of the 
base on the environment and health, technical problems of the “missile 
defense”, a potential criminality problem) which may be seen as 
complementary. However, we feel that the “democratic” and “security and 
peace” arguments are the strongest ones in our case, both internally and 
internationally.
For the U.S. – Czech cooperation on the radar issue, another argument 
can be perhaps added: the radar has already caused certain harm to the 
reputation of the United States with the Czech public which has been 
traditionally sympathetic to America. However, because of radar, and 
also in the context of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its reputation 
has started to erode.
>From the Czech perspective, one of decisive moments will arrive some 
time in February when the agreements would be discussed by the Chamber 
of Deputies. The exact timing and course of the event is hard to 
forecast. However, an explicit stand of the Washington, D.C. conference 
on this issue would be very helpful in any case.
The co-operation should of course continue after the conference. If the 
radar is defeated in the Czech Parliament, it would mean a great common 
victory for all its opponents worldwide. However, the task will remain 
for us of helping the U.S. efforts to influence the security and 
military policies of the new U.S. administration. If the radar is 
eventually passed in the Czech Parliament, we will have to keep working 
in both directions, the Czech and the U.S.
Due perhaps to specific circumstances, the radar issue and the 
resistance against the radar has mobilized a great deal of activism and 
public opinion in the Czech Republic. It is our feeling that the 
combination of democratic, security and peace issues raised by the radar 
will remain an important factor in the Czech society also in the future.
(January 2009)
5. Thoughts on Strategies for Closing Foreign Military Bases
Submitted by John Lindsay-Poland, Fellowship of Reconciliation
johnlp at igc.org

Introduction: I do not believe that any single strategy by itself will 
achieve our goals. On the contrary, the most successful struggles 
against even individual military bases and their activities have 
combined different approaches and strategies: civil disobedience and 
support for those engaged in it, action in the courts, cultural 
creation, contact with media, lobbying, historical and scientific 
research, organizing communities in solidarity, vigils, organizing 
referenda, etc. - enabling people from diverse circumstances, political 
ideologies, and levels of commitment to participate. This diversity may 
have been more spontaneous than intentional, but it offers a lesson for 
our struggles. At the same time, some strategies, to be successful, 
require mass commitment, and in the case of our movements, the adoption 
of such strategies could mean we do not undertake others. For example, 
if we pursued a global referendum on military bases, we would need to 
channel all our energy into winning such a referendum. Good timing and 
an assessment of our capacities are thus critical to choosing successful 
strategies.

The strength of movements against military bases has resided, at its 
core, in communities affected by the bases that decide to resist, and in 
doing so, arouse solidarity and political support from other actors. It 
is easy for people to understand resistance to military takeover and 
despoliation of land and waters and rape and abuse of its members. 
Military bases are also symbols of the United States’ destructive 
arrogance and imperial greed, and so attract opposition.

What has been more difficult has been, when a local struggle is 
victorious in kicking out the military or limiting its action – in the 
Philippines, in Kaho’olawe, in Vieques, in Panama, Paraguay, and 
elsewhere - to keep the military from moving its destructive activities 
to another community, possibly more economically desperate, politically 
marginalized or conservative, or unaware of the potential consequences. 
The same is occurring now with the transfer of US Marines from Okinawa 
to Guam. This is because the military’s objectives are typically not 
restricted to control of the local area where a base or military 
presence has been established. The closure of the US Army School of the 
Americas in Georgia will not end US training of militaries schooled in 
impunity, because SOA is responsible for a small percentage of overall 
US training for Latin American armies. Where the military’s objectives 
are regional – such as in the Triple Frontera of Paraguay, Argentina and 
Brazil – it is sometimes possible to limit foreign military control, 
though the limits may not be permanent.

Where are the fora in which we may systemically challenge the US 
military’s imperial expansion, while continuing to support local and 
national struggles? Here are four possibilities, which focus on making 
the problem visible, framing it in terms that support those harmed by 
military bases, and creating mechanisms to push foreign military bases back.

Presence at Regional Military Meetings: In the Americas, the defense 
ministers of each country (except Cuba) come together every two years to 
make plans. It is a kind of G-8 or Summit of the Americas for the 
region’s military leaders, dominated by the United States. But these 
military leaders do not consult civil society as they make their plans. 
Begun in 1995, the last “Defense Ministerial of the Americas” was in 
Managua last October; the next will be in Canada in 2008. The one 
following that will be in Bolivia in 2010. We should propose that 
activists gather to protest military bases at these ministerials. Such 
protests could also serve to protest the United States’ wars and other 
forms of military domination.

United Nations and International Law: Explore the use and development of 
mechanisms in international law for the closure and cleanup of foreign 
military bases. For example, formulate legal challenges to bases that 
were acquired illegally (by war, or through unconstitutional 
agreements). This will require the involvement of lawyers with knowledge 
of international law, as well as groups in the affected countries. The 
current campaign to close the prison for detainees in Guantanamo should 
be expanded, for example, but the basis in international law for doing 
so will probably be very different. Although it may be difficult to 
enforce international law, especially given the United States’ defiance 
of it, it has a powerful political and moral impact, and helps change 
the terms of debate. It helps to create debate.

A regional version of this approach would be to seek support from an 
anti-imperialist government (e.g. Ecuador, Bolivia) to propose the 
prohibition of foreign military bases within a region, such as Latin 
America and the Caribbean (similar to the Contadora process in Central 
America in the 1980s). To be effective, careful attention would have to 
be given to defining military bases (or presence). To encompass the 
modalities often adopted by the United States (host nation keeping title 
to a base, quasi-permanent maneuvers instead of installations), such a 
prohibition would need to be broad. At the same time, a broad definition 
might well apply to regional and bilateral military agreements, not all 
of which are led by the United States (e.g. Venezuela-Bolivia).

Use Global Media: While most of international media – CNN, Univisión, 
etc. – are corporate-controlled and hostile or indifferent to 
anti-militarist efforts, others may be sympathetic, such as Telesur and 
Al Jazeera International. We should form an international committee to 
work for ongoing coverage of military base problems in these media, and 
for the distribution of documentaries and other reports. This committee 
would also work to make visible resistance to military bases at 
especially critical or dramatic moments, so that this resistance is more 
visible.

US Congress: The Democratic Party in the United States is not an 
anti-imperialist institution, and has supported military expansion. 
However, Democratic control of the US legislature offers possibilities 
for getting a hearing on some of the abuses and problems created by 
military bases, old and new. For example, Korean activists working for 
environmental cleanup of bases that are closing could work with US 
activists to expose the problem and advocate a full cleanup.

Not included here are activities and tactics that could easily be 
integrated with these strategies, such as an international day of 
action, sharing information, fundraising, speaking tours, etc.

6. Grannies for Peace Strategies
Submitted by Nydia Leaf, Grannies Peace Brigade
nyleaf at verizon.net


1. What are your goals for U.S. bases in your state? (region? area?)

The Granny Peace Brigade focus has not been on domestic bases in our 
state or region. but rather on U.S. foreign military bases. This grew 
out of the April 2007 Women's International Democratic Federation 
Congress in Caracas where attendees from Japan, Germany and Korea spoke 
out against the bases in their countries. The Grannies attending the 
Congress, hearing how despised these bases were, later submitted a 
resolution - unanimously approved - that stipulated the closing of U.S 
military bases on foreign soil. They promised action on their return to 
New York and that is the genesis of our three No Bases Teach-ins, 
starting November 2007.

Regarding local bases, one goal would be to design concerted, concrete 
proposals for alternatives to bases, especially when entire communities 
and towns are dependent upon bases for their existence: both 
economically and socially (jobs, schools, clinics, etc.).

When there have been base closings, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard, an 
array of alternative uses were devised. Since many closings may require 
environmental hazards' abatement, that could be one area for jobs 
creation. But base locations are crucial to many communities, just as 
the Pentagon has skillfully arranged for production of B-1 bomber 
components to be distributed among the 50 states. The Defense Department 
does not outsource weapons production - they keep it homegrown; thus the 
bases, like the manufacturing jobs, are tightly woven into the economies 
of the states, e.g. in Barney Frank's home state of Massachusetts the 
largest employer is Raytheon.

2. What are your group's main activities/ regarding anti-bases organizing?

A series of Teach-ins has been our main activity regarding anti-base 
organizing in fulfillment of a resolution at a 2007 Congress as 
described above. There was an urgent need to inform the public on a 
topic which is totally absent from the mainstream media, much less an 
issue for vital discussion.

The Teach-ins have involved working with experts and organizations, 
utilizing their strengths and knowledge while drawing on our own. By 
sharing information with groups, networks and individuals in printed 
materials and the media (radio, TV, videography, blogs) our outreach has 
been enhanced.

Our other strategies consist of lobbying, phon-a-thons (providing 
information and discussion re: pertinent issues related to peace/ 
anti-war activities) encouraging people to contact their elected 
representatives concerning these issues; letter writing; a website 
including a blog; providing groups (high school and college students, 
parents, community groups, etc.) information re: U.S. militarism; 
meetings with elected representatives; counter recruitment at high schools.

3. How can activist networks in other countries contribute to your 
group's work?

We have been contacted by activist groups in other countries (Germany, 
the Czech Republic, and Italy) regarding the U.S. military and all 
military. Twice the Grannies have been invited and accepted invitations 
to Germany.

Teaming with organizations across the world is the only way to advance 
collaboratively designed changes. Since the cost of travel overseas 
would be prohibitive, we can rely on the Internet to provide the flow of 
ideas and strategies, while on the domestic side we can e-mail elected 
officials locally and in Washington regarding our standing on policies.

At the 2007 Congress we were asked why we did not stipulate ALL bases to 
be closed? In other words...not just the U.S. bases. But this is a topic 
for discussion at another time.
4. What activities and strategies would you/your group like to see as 
part of a coordinated international movement against U.S. bases?

We must teach the public how to redefine "Security" as the title of this 
conference states. The role of overseas US bases is to facilitate wars, 
but if the bases don't enhance our security, let's try a different path. 
Disseminating information to the grass-roots is of the utmost importance 
because the corporate media will never do it.

As the UN has not been able to impact the US, there needs to be more 
effort, globally, to expand the movement against U.S. bases. Let's 
identify and encourage actions to be taken in unison with organizations 
here (environmental, religious, social and economic) and with other 
countries. Convene international fora at which strategies would be 
identified to address the issue.

Our first Teach-in - to shut down Guantanamo - was held on Armistice 
Day, 2007 - November 11 - the 11th month and the eleventh day. Our 
planet is perhaps at its eleventh hour - we nominate Armistice Day as a 
time to hold a global meeting with a focus on closing U.S. foreign 
military bases.