This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week,click here.
Whether youre thinking about war, climate change, or Donald Trump, we distinctly seem to be in a world going to hell in a proverbial handbasket or do I mean an e-basket or, for that matter, could it be a Trump and Putin basket? In such a world, if you want to do anything to try to reset the human agenda, or at least protest where its taking us (as I know all too well after 24 years of doing TomDispatch), you need basic information of a sort that often isnt available to most of us from the mainstream media. Its just what this site, in fact, has been trying to provide for more than two decades both information on the hell(s) we humans seem to eternally have the urge to create and how on earth to stop us from heading in precisely that direction.
Among those who have provided just such basic and crucial information at this site is William Hartung. He arrived at TomDispatchin March 2008 with an aptly titled piece, The Cost of a Week in Hell, that explored just what it was indeed costing the rest of us ($3.5 billion, as it happened!) for this country to fight its then ongoing and disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for a single week. And ever since, for the last 17 years, hes been providing crucial information on the U.S. military, its ever-growing (and soon to become trillion-dollar) defense budget, and the crew that, in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower first dubbed the military-industrial complex, especially the major corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and most recently high-tech firms like Palantir and Anduril that have been making endless fortunes in taxpayer dollars from supplying that military with ever more wildly expensive (and all-too-often remarkably useless) weaponry.
Today, he takes an interesting step back from his own work of a lifetime to consider the role that research itself and the necessary knowledge it provides must play in any attempt to make this mess of a world of ours a better place. Let him explain. Tom
The Role of Information in Building a New World
Research as a Key to Fighting Militarism and Repression
I have spent the bulk of my career on and off since the late Carter Administration following the money that drives war and repression. What I have finally learned after so many decades of doing research on the war machine is that while research is critical, it must be in the service of a smart strategy backed by a lot of hard work by organizers from all walks of life.
My interest in using research to promote social change was sparked by my years at Columbia University in the 1970s, when I was a researcher and advocate in the divestment movement targeting the apartheid regime of South Africa and a participant in other social justice movements like the boycott in support of the United Farmworkers Union and the opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile.
Henry Kissingers justification for the U.S.-backed coup in Chile that put Augusto Pinochet in power still sticks in my mind: I dont see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.
So much for the land of the free and the beacon of global democracy.
The U.S. role in the coup was eventually recounted by many media outlets, but for me the first and most important was the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), which devoted several issues of its magazine, then called The Latin America and Empire Report, to the origins of the coup, including the role of U.S. corporations. I was so impressed with their research and commitment that I applied to work at NACLA after graduating from Columbia in January 1978. They wisely demurred, since my background on Latin America was largely limited to what I had read in their own reports. Still, their skill in deploying detailed research to debunk the official lies that surrounded the coup stuck with me.
Research Against Apartheid
My real schooling in research, however, came in the anti-apartheid movement, starting with the divestment campaign at Columbia and expanding into my work with national anti-apartheid organizations like the American Committee on Africa (ACOA). Again, research was front and center. In order to make effective demands for divestment, we needed to know which companies were supporting the apartheid regime, and which of those companies our universities held stock in. ACOA was of great help in this, including through Richard Knight, who worked in a back room of their offices at 198 Broadway and had what may well have been the messiest desk in the history of progressive politics. But if my memory serves me correctly, he seemed to be able to remember exactly where he put a given document in one of the many piles of paper that obscured his desktop. The work he did, along with colleagues at ACOA, helped fuel the student divestment movement, along with research by students on campuses around the country.
Another key group at that time was Corporate Data Exchange (CDE). Tina Simcich, who worked at CDE and was also part of the New York Committee to Oppose Bank Loans to South Africa (COBLSA), did the definitive research on which banks were lending to the apartheid regime.
At Columbia, we made an interesting discovery that put the lie to the universitys position on divestment. In response to demands to divest from firms involved with the apartheid regime, university leaders argued that, if there were objections to the actions of companies they were invested in, they felt it would be more productive to support shareholder resolutions seeking to change their conduct than to divest from those companies stocks.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
