1997 CPEO Military List Archive

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

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index