|
|
|
|
Rights Action
January 18, 2017
*******
“The Issue Is Not Trump, It's Us” / “Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year?”
Comprehensive analysis of the global human context in which Rights Action – and all of us – work and struggle. As Martin Luther King day is honored (by some) and as Trump is to assume the U.S. presidency, we share two articles:
- “The Issue Is Not Trump, It's Us”, by John Pilger, Telesur English
- “Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year?”, by Greg Grandin, The Nation
*******
The Issue Is Not Trump, It's Us
By John Pilger, 16 January 2017
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-Issue-Is-Not-Trump-Its-Us-20170116-0025.html
Under Obama, the U.S. extended secret "special forces" operations to 138 countries, or 70 percent of the world's population.
On the day President Trump is inaugurated, thousands of writers in the United States will express their indignation. "In order for us to heal and move forward," say Writers Resist, "we wish to bypass direct political discourse, in favor of an inspired focus on the future, and how we, as writers, can be a unifying force for the protection of democracy."
They continue, "We urge local organizers and speakers to avoid using the names of politicians or adopting 'anti' language as the focus for their Writers Resist event. It's important to ensure that nonprofit organizations, which are prohibited from political campaigning, will feel confident participating in and sponsoring these events."
Thus, real protest is to be avoided, for it is not tax exempt.
Compare such drivel with the declarations of the Congress of American Writers, held at Carnegie Hall, New York, in 1935, and again two years later. They were electric events, with writers discussing how they could confront ominous events in Abyssinia, China and Spain. Telegrams from Thomas Mann, Cecil Day-Lewis, Upton Sinclair and Albert Einstein were read out, reflecting the fear that great power was now rampant and that it had become impossible to discuss art and literature without politics or, indeed, direct political action.
"A writer," the journalist Martha Gellhorn told the second congress, "must be a man of action now ... A man who has given a year of his life to steel strikes, or to the unemployed, or to the problems of racial prejudice, has not lost or wasted time. He is a man who has known where he belonged. If you should survive such action, what you have to say about it afterwards is the truth, is necessary and real, and it will last."
Her words echo across the unction and violence of the Barack Obama era and the silence of those who colluded with his deceptions.
That the menace of rapacious power — rampant long before the rise of Trump — has been accepted by writers, many of them privileged and celebrated, and by those who guard the gates of literary criticism and culture, including popular culture, is uncontroversial.
Not for them, the possibility of writing and promoting literature filled with politics. Not for them, the responsibility of speaking out, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Today, false symbolism is all. "Identity" is all. In 2016, Hillary Clinton stigmatized millions of voters as "a basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it." Her abuse was handed out at an LGBTQ rally as part of her cynical campaign to win over people of color by abusing a white, mostly working-class majority. Divide and rule, this is called; or identity politics in which race and gender conceal class, and allow the waging of class war. Trump understood this.
"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident poet Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie." This is not a U.S. phenomenon. A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that "for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life."
No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today. Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice. Among today's insistent voices of consumer-feminism, none echoes Virginia Woolf, who described "the arts of dominating other people ... of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital."
There is something both venal and profoundly stupid about famous writers as they venture outside their cosseted world and embrace an "issue." Across the review section of the Guardian on Dec. 10 was a dreamy picture of Barack Obama looking up to the heavens and the words, "Amazing Grace" and "Farewell the Chief."
The sycophancy ran like a polluted babbling brook through page after page. "He was a vulnerable figure in many ways ... But the grace. The all-encompassing grace: in manner and form, in argument and intellect, with humour and cool ... (He) is a blazing tribute to what has been, and what can be again ... He seems ready to keep fighting, and remains a formidable champion to have on our side ... The grace ... the almost surreal levels of grace."
I have conflated these quotes. There are others even more hagiographic and bereft of mitigation. The Guardian's chief apologist for Obama, Gary Younge, has always been careful to mitigate, to say that his hero "could have done more," oh, but there were the "calm, measured and consensual solutions."
None of them, however, could surpass the U.S. writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the recipient of a "genius" grant worth US$625,000 from a liberal foundation. In an interminable essay for the Atlantic titled, "My President Was Black," Coates brought new meaning to prostration. The final "chapter," titled, "When You Left, You Took All of Me With You," a line from a Marvin Gaye song, describes seeing the Obamas "rising out of the limo, rising up from fear, smiling, waving, defying despair, defying history, defying gravity." The Ascension, no less.
One of the persistent strands in U.S. political life is a cultish extremism that approaches fascism. This was given expression and reinforced during the two terms of Barack Obama. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being," said Obama, who expanded the United States' favorite military pastime: bombing and death squads ("special operations") as no other president has done since the Cold War.
According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 alone Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day. He bombed the poorest people on earth, in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.
Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the "terrorist target." A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama's drones killed 4,700 people. "Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that," he said, "but we've taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda."
Like the fascism of the 1930s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome, thanks to an omnipresent media whose description now fits that of the Nuremberg prosecutor: "Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically ... In the propaganda system ... it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."
Take the catastrophe in Libya. In 2011, Obama said Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew ... that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
This was the known lie of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. It became the media story and NATO — led by Obama and Hillary Clinton — launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and UNICEF reported that "most (of the children killed) were under the age of ten."
Under Obama, the U.S. extended secret "special forces" operations to 138 countries, or 70 percent of the world's population. The first African-American president launched what amounted to a full-scale invasion of Africa. Reminiscent of the "Scramble for Africa" in the late 19th century, the U.S. African Command has built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for U.S. bribes and armaments. Africom's "soldier to soldier" doctrine embeds U.S. officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.
It is as if Africa's proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, is consigned to oblivion by a new master's Black colonial elite whose "historic mission," warned Frantz Fanon half a century ago, is the promotion of "a capitalism rampant though camouflaged."
It was Obama who, in 2011, announced what became known as the "pivot to Asia," in which almost two-thirds of U.S. naval forces would be transferred to the Asia-Pacific area to "confront China," in the words of his defense secretary. There was no threat from China; the entire enterprise was unnecessary. It was an extreme provocation to keep the Pentagon and its demented brass happy.
In 2014, the Obama administration oversaw and paid for a fascist-led coup in Ukraine against the democratically-elected government, threatening Russia in the western borderland through which Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, with a loss of 27 million lives. It was Obama who placed missiles in Eastern Europe aimed at Russia, and it was this winner of the Nobel Peace prize who increased spending on nuclear warheads to a level higher than that of any administration since the cold war, having promised, in an emotional speech in Prague to "help rid the world of nuclear weapons."
Obama, the constitutional lawyer, prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president in history, even though the U.S. constitution protects them. He declared Chelsea Manning guilty before the end of a trial that was a travesty. He has refused to pardon Manning who has suffered years of inhumane treatment which the U.N. says amounts to torture. He has pursued an entirely bogus case against Julian Assange. He promised to close the Guantanamo concentration camp and didn't.
Following the public relations disaster of George W. Bush, Obama, the smooth operator from Chicago via Harvard, was enlisted to restore what he calls "leadership" throughout the world. The Nobel prize committee's decision was part of this: the kind of cloying reverse racism that beatified the man for no reason other than he was attractive to liberal sensibilities and, of course, U.S. power, if not to the children he kills in impoverished, mostly Muslim countries.
This is the Call of Obama. It is not unlike a dog whistle: inaudible to most, irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded, especially "liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics," as Luciana Bohne put it. "When Obama walks into a room," gushed George Clooney, "you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere."
William I. Robinson, professor at the University of California, and one of an uncontaminated group of U.S. strategic thinkers who have retained their independence during the years of intellectual dog-whistling since 9/11 wrote this last week, "President Barack Obama ... may have done more than anyone to assure Trump's victory. While Trump's election has triggered a rapid expansion of fascist currents in U.S. civil society, a fascist outcome for the political system is far from inevitable ... But that fight back requires clarity as to how we got to such a dangerous precipice. The seeds of 21st-century fascism were planted, fertilized and watered by the Obama administration and the politically bankrupt liberal elite."
Robinson points out that "whether in its 20th or its emerging 21st-century variants, fascism is, above all, a response to a deep structural crisis of capitalism, such as that of the 1930s and the one that began with the financial meltdown in 2008 ... There is a near-straight line here from Obama to Trump ... The liberal elite's refusal to challenge the rapaciousness of transnational capital and its brand of identity politics served to eclipse the language of the working and popular classes ... pushing white workers into an 'identity' of white nationalism and helping the neo-fascists to organize them."
The seedbed is Obama's Weimar Republic, a landscape of endemic poverty, militarized police and barbaric prisons, the consequence of a "market" extremism which, under his presidency, prompted the transfer of US$14 trillion in public money to criminal enterprises in Wall Street.
Perhaps his greatest "legacy" is the co-option and disorientation of any real opposition. Bernie Sanders' specious "revolution" does not apply. Propaganda is his triumph.
The lies about Russia — in whose elections the U.S. has openly intervened — have made the world's most self-important journalists laughing stocks. In the country with constitutionally the freest press in the world, free journalism now exists only in its honorable exceptions.
The obsession with Trump is a cover for many of those calling themselves "left/liberal," as if to claim political decency. They are not "left," neither are they especially "liberal." Much of the United States' aggression towards the rest of humanity has come from so-called liberal democratic administrations such as Obama's. The U.S.' political spectrum extends from the mythical center to the lunar right. The "left" are homeless renegades Martha Gellhorn described as "a rare and wholly admirable fraternity." She excluded those who confuse politics with a fixation on their navels.
While they "heal" and "move forward," will the Writers Resist campaigners and other anti-Trumpists reflect upon this? More to the point: when will a genuine movement of opposition arise — angry, eloquent, all-for-one-and-one-for all.
Until real politics return to people's lives, the enemy is not Trump, it is ourselves.
*******
Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year?
Our endless wars have destroyed nations and warped our own political culture.
By Greg Grandin, The Nation, January 16, 2017
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-did-the-us-dropped-26171-bombs-on-the-world-last-year/
The United States started bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991, and, except for a few brief intervals, hasn’t stopped since. Twenty-six years this Monday, more than a quarter of a century, and four US presidents, all of whom have bombed Iraq. Last year, the rate of bombing increased over 20,105. The lion’s share of the 26,171 bombs dropped by the United States on the world was split evenly between Iraq and Syria, though we did reserve a dollop for Yemen. And the United States dropped more on Libya, about 500, in 2016, than in 2015.
Trump, and Trumpism, is a symptom of the sickness, not the source.
The 1991 bombing began at 2:10 am Baghdad time (January 17 there)—over 100,000 sorties, tens of thousands of bombs dropped by thousands of planes. “Smart bombs” lit up the sky as the TV cameras rolled. Featured were new night-vision equipment, real-time satellite communications, and cable TV—as well as former US military commanders ready to narrate the war in the style of football announcers, right down to instant replays.
“In sports-page language,” said CBS News anchor Dan Rather on the first night of the attack, “this… it’s not a sport. It’s war. But so far, it’s a blowout.”
The next day, January 18, in the CBS studio, Walter Cronkite and Rather engaged in an extended conversation that made them seem less like sports announcers describing live action than veteran color commentators comparing today’s game to how it used to be played. The two men concluded that the old big-bellied B-52s that had been used extensively in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and now were being deployed to bomb Baghdad were more effective at sowing terror and generating panic than the lean “high-tech” missiles the media was fascinated with:
Walter Cronkite: You have seen the B-52s in operation in Vietnam, I have, and they are almost a terror weapon, they are so powerful. They are dropping all of those bombs. My heavens, 14 tons of bomb out of a single airplane—they could very well panic the Iraq army…. One thing that’s interesting about this, Dan, these bombs come in at a very low rate of speed, comparatively—compared to rocketry and other such things, and as a result, the bomb blast is widespread. It can do an awful lot of surface damage without really rather serious damage to a single target, except right where it lands—blow out a lot of windows, blow out a lot of walls, things of that kind as opposed to the high speed missiles that are inclined to bury themselves and blow up….
Dan Rather: Want to pick up on what you were talking about with the B-52s. It’s certainly true, anybody who’s seen or been through a B-52 raid, it’s an absolutely unforgettable, mind-searing experience.
Cronkite: When you’re not underneath it directly.
Rather: Exactly. And that’s when you’re able to just sort of observe it. It is a devastatingly effective, physical bombing weapon, but also psychologically. That one of the reasons of going right at the heart of Saddam Hussein’s best troops is [to cause] panic and to—to break the back of—of morale.
It’s unnerving, this hesitant and uneasy comparison to Vietnam. It has the effect of normalizing the rationale that had long been given for the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos that took place two decades earlier: a “savage blow” delivered by slow-flying “terror weapons” to “break the back” of opponents. It’s also jarring when one realizes that this is what the people of Cambodia and Laos experienced for years—as more bomb tonnage was dropped on them than was dropped in all of World War II—with not one word in the US press on what it must have been like to live under such conditions.
Such color commentary, along with the real-time reporting of cable news, the night-vision equipment and camera-carrying smart bombs, allowed for public consumption of a techno-display of apparent omnipotence that, at least for a short time, helped consolidate mass approval and was meant as both a lesson for and a warning to the rest of the world.
And with instant replay came instant gratification, confirmation that the president had the public’s backing. On midnight, January 18, a day into the assault, CBS TV announced that a new poll “indicates extremely strong support for Mr. Bush’s Gulf offensive.” “By God,” Bush said in triumph, “we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
Today equally unnerving is the lack of commentary, the silence. Twenty-six thousand one hundred and seventy-one (26,171) bombs last year, an increase from the year before. And nary a word from media that gave Donald Trump billions of dollars of free publicity. Maybe if Trump tweets out his bombing schedule, someone will notice.
Has there ever been a country like the United States, a country that bombs at will, and might alternate justifying that bombing by either invoking universal values or putting in a referral for therapy? Self-affirmation bombing. In any case, the “kicking the Vietnam syndrome” wasn’t a one-time thing but rather the start of a long course of maintenance, whereby the United States became habituated to bombing, especially the bombing of Iraq, but also other countries.
Take a look at the “debates” around Bosnia, Kosovo, and so on, and more than a few will recommend a good course of bombs for what it will do for domestic spirit, for how it will stiffen our spines to fight other wars when needed.
Bill Clinton lobbed cruise missiles into Iraq at regular intervals, for various reasons: to punish a supposed Baghdad-backed assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush (23 missiles launched, including one that struck a residential area and killed nine children); to protect the Kurds (46 missiles); to force Iraq to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
This last assault took place in 1998, on the eve of the House impeachment vote related to the Monica Lewinsky affair, and was described by The New York Times as “a strong sustained series of air strikes.” “More than 200 missiles rained down upon Iraq,” the Times reported, “without any diplomacy or warning.”
Then of course came the Second Gulf War in 2003, followed by the civil war, and now the war against ISIS.
The Pentagon has a database of every bomb it has dropped since WWI, including up through today’s wars. Older portions of the data base can be used by the public. But 1991 forward is classified, naturally. Imagine if we could select just for February 25–27, 1991—the “Highway of Death,” as the United States slaughtered retreating Iraqis. Or learn just how many US bombs were dropped on February 13, on a Baghdadi civilian air-raid shelter, killing at least 300 civilians.
In any case, the database, even prior to 1991, is difficult to use. Here’s what it said when I tried to do a search related to Vietnam: “Please note that the entire database contains millions…of records and may take a considerable time to download.”
This year, the anniversary marking the start of the 1991 air war on Iraq falls the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and a few days before the inauguration of Donald Trump as president.
“Our bombs now pummel the land…,” King once said, breaking with the Democratic establishment to condemn war and militarism. “Now they languish under our bombs.” King knew that the origins of what we now call “post-truth” could be found in America’s endless wars, wars fought in the name of the highest ideals with the most brutal tactics, wars that turn victims into aggressors and aggressors into victims.
Ho Chi Minh, King said in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech, “hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.”
Asked in 1977 if the United States has a moral obligation to help rebuild Vietnam, President Jimmy Carter answered: “Well, the destruction was mutual. You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people.”
In 1971, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger identified a “semantic collapse” brought about by relentless militarism, a moral, intellectual, and financial corruption that severs words from their meanings and unmoors ethics from their foundation.
Starting with the “Indochina War,” Americans “found themselves systematically staving off reality by allowing a horrid military-bureaucratic patois to protect our sensibilities from the ghastly things we were doing,” sterilizing “the frightful reality of napalm and My Lai.” In turn, Watergate, which itself was prompted by Vietnam, led to the “utter debasement of language,” a further corrosion of meanings and institutions central for democratic governance.
Today, in all the many forensic think pieces dissecting the presidential election and Trump’s victory—the vast majority of which focus on debates over class and race, or the formation and unraveling of domestic coalitions—only a few observers pay much attention to our endless wars. I think, though, that the “semantic collapse” Schlesinger identified continues.
Many good people have tried, but there has been no reconstruction of meaning, no stemming the corrosion that relentless, grinding warfare has on morals. Iran-Contra, as I’ve tried to show repeatedly, was another major step in the semantic collapse, an operation that included using foreign donations and taxpayer dollars to run a psychological operation on American public opinion.
Then, of course, there was all the lies, all the deceit, all the wag-the-dog style manipulations basically to hunt down a man whose most dangerous activity at the time, we now know, was writing a novel. It has all brought us to this moment, with Andrew Bacevich, here situating the rise of Trump in a larger structural crisis, and Gary Wills being among the few to look beyond their provincial debates.
Wills, in an essay titled “Disciples of Distrust,” sees Trump as a symptom of the “shuddering distrust of every kind of authority—a contempt for the whole political system, its ‘establishment,’ the Congress, its institutions (like the Fed), its ‘mainstream’ media, the international arrangements it has made (not only the trade deals but the treaty obligations under NATO and other defense agreements).
This is a staggering injection of bile into the public discourse. It does not answer, or even address, the question: what kind of order can be maintained in a society that does not recognize the legitimacy of any offices?”
“What has caused this bitter disillusion?” Here’s Wills’s answer:
It is the burrowing and undermining infection of the Iraq war—the longest in our history, one that keeps upsetting order abroad and at home. The war’s many costs—not just in lives and money but in psychic and political damage—remain only half-visible in America, as hidden as the returning coffins that could not be photographed for years. One way to gauge the damage is to look at it in a smaller mirror. What the war did to Great Britain is more visible because it has been better exposed in government investigations—the Hutton Report (2004), the Butler Review (2004), the Chilcot Inquiry (2016). These have made the once-popular Tony Blair an object of intense loathing. To get his country into the Iraq war, Blair jiggered the intelligence, lied to his own party, ignored sound advice, and put his manhood into a blind trust with George W. Bush….
If that was true of a minor player in the war like Britain, what should we think of the Bush team that invented the war, sold it as a “cakewalk,” and hid the ugliness of it—the spying on American citizens, the secret torture sites spread around the world?
Torture occurs in all wars; but Bush is the first president (he may not be the last) who adopted an official rationale and defense for torture. This alone, apart from all his other war measures, would make him our worst president ever. To gauge our descent into distrust, we should measure it against the giddy assent we gave to the war at its start. Congress voted for it, the press supported it (Judith Miller treating The New York Times as a branch of the Pentagon), symbols celebrated it—the toppled Saddam statue, the dramatic landing on the “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier, the purple fingers of free election.
The current distrust grew out of a realization that all these things were phony. Why should we trust the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the press, the president, the experts, the elites? They were all in on the huge scam that was going to spread democracy through the Middle East, and just ignited wilder fires of terrorism there and elsewhere.
Barack Obama promised to lift the country out of this muck. He said that Iraq was the wrong war. We should have stayed with the Afghan war, which was the right war. But then he re-entered Afghanistan, making the right war the new wrong war—and we have been floundering in both wars for all his years as president. Both wars are still there for him to hand on to his successor. Obama hid for years the extent of his assassinations by drone. No wonder he did not want anyone accountable for the vast torture programs of the Bush-Cheney years.
To his followers, Trump seems to “tell it like it is” because he voices their dissatisfactions. His insults show he does not follow the polite evasions of “political correctness.” He will not be bound by any of the practices that seem to have brought about the loss of status of people not rewarded by the economy. He will not have to submit any spending to a gridlocked Congress. He will end Obamacare and do something else—anything will be better. Abroad, he will just “bomb the shit” out of enemies, not acting under the restraint of alliances. He will go it alone. As he said at the convention, “I alone can fix it.” His followers think that they are acting alone through him. That makes them regain what they imagine were their powers under some earlier era. He will wage wars without allies. He will end terrorism by means far more drastic than waterboarding. He will kill the terrorists’ children. He will make America vilely great again.
Me, I’m waiting to see what things will look like on the 50th anniversary of the continuous bombing of Iraq. That one too will be followed by a presidential inauguration.
*******
Get Informed / Get Involved
- Speakers: Invite us to give presentations about these issues and struggles
- Delegations: Join educational seminars to Guatemala and Honduras to learn first-hand about these issues and struggles
- Recommend Daily News: www.democracynow.org, www.upsidedownworld.org, www.telesurtv.net/english, www.rabble.ca,
- Recommended Books: “This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus The Climate”, by Naomi Klein; “Open Veins of Latin America”, by Eduardo Galeano; “A People’s History of the United States”, by Howard Zinn
Why So Many Central Americans Flee North, Decade After Decade?
The exploitation and poverty, violence and government repression, corruption and impunity of Honduras and Guatemala are “American” and “Canadian” issues. The U.S. and Canadian governments, the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, and North American companies and investors (including pension funds) maintain profitable economic and military relations with the Guatemalan and Honduran regimes, turning a blind eye and/or directly contributing to environmental harms, exploitation, repression, corruption and impunity that are the norm in these countries, that force so many to flee.
Tax-Deductible Donations (Canada & United States)
To support community, human rights and environmental defense organizations in Honduras and Guatemala, working and struggling for justice and for fundamental change from the local to global levels, make check payable to "Rights Action" and mail to:
U.S.: Box 50887, Washington DC, 20091-0887
Canada: (Box 552) 351 Queen St. E, Toronto ON, M5A-1T8
Credit-Card Donations
Canada: https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/rights-action/
U.S.: http://www.rightsaction.org/tax-deductible-donations (click on NetworkForGood)
|
|
Tax Deductible Donations
|
Make check payable to "Rights Action" and mail to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
