From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:06:33 -0700 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | NARAB - My View |
"NARAB" - My Response People have been asking me for my view of the proposed National Association of Restoration Advisory Boards (NARAB). I have not responded thus far NARAB because I don't want to pour cold water on the enthusiasm. After playing a lead role, in the early 1990's, in the formation of what it now the Military Toxics Project (MTP), I have consciously chosen another route to national "organizing" - the creation of a communications network. Thus far, the approach has been successful, but I am open to new FORMS if they are closely linked to FUNCTION. I base my conclusions not only on my recent work on the military and the environment, but on my experience dating back to SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) in the late 60's. The problem with national organizations is that they usually attract people whose primary interest is in taking them over. Even if genuine grassroots activists retain control, they must waste an enormous amount of time and energy doing so. That's what happened years ago with SDS. More recently, I saw the same pattern with both the National Toxics Campaign and MTP. I can recall both groups spending enormous amounts of money bringing together people from all over to meetings where the primary focus was on internal organization. This appears to be less of a problem where the make-up of the group is narrowly defined by its scope. I think the Chemical Weapons Working Group and the Military Production Network (DOE Sites) are positive examples of national organizations, but organizational membership in both is limited by the small number of facilities facing each problem. Furthermore, national organizations often respond to highly significant race issues by giving people of color leadership positions even if they aren't working on the issues of concern to most of the organization. That is, instead of environmental justice, we get tokenism. They say they are following what we used to call (in the 60's and 70's) Third World leadership, but they really pick and choose the people of color that they anoint. That's why CAREER/PRO has focused upon communications, and we have sought vehicles - meetings and E-mail - that allow activists to talk to one another without us filtering the information. We also try to bring real grassroots representatives to meetings and advisory boards where they can directly influence decision-makers. But we avoid situations where a lot of effort is spent electing national officers or developing national demands. The shortcoming of our approach is that it may make us the unelected representatives of activists, particularly in the eyes of DC policy-makers. That sometimes happens, but if we get out of line, we lose support. Aimee and I have consistently recruited, and sought acceptance for, a range of community activists to take part in national policy discussions, even if they do not share out views. There's another consequence of our approach that might be construed as either positive or negative. We don't just work with environmental activists. We work with the entire range of RAB members, including military retirees, local officials, and business representatives, not just left-wing tree-huggers like me. RAB caucuses that are designed to attract only disgruntled participants play a useful function, but they do not represent the RAB constituency as a whole. I think the proponents of a NARAB need to figure out exactly what functions aren't being fulfilled now and propose a structure to meet those needs, considering the potential negative impacts. Raising money may be difficult, because the foundations that typically consider such projects have a history with MTP and ARC. On the other hand, I've always supported the NABER concept that Sam Goodhope mentioned - an ongoing national advisory board. National policy-makers need to hear directly from a broader cross-section of RAB members. However, the Defense Department has been unwilling to set up such a body, so every time an opportunity arises, such as with the Keystone munitions dialogue, I push it in that direction. Lenny Siegel Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO (and Pacific Studies Center) c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@igc.org |
Follow-Ups
|
Prev by Date: National RAB Caucus Next by Date: Re: RAB Guidance Documents | |
Prev by Thread: Re: RAB Guidance Documents Next by Thread: Re: NARAB - My View |