We're giving the forces of evil, the forces of the antichrist, room in our government. That's the ANC [African National Congress].
-- Dominee (Reverend) Pieter Nel, an Afrikaner minister 1992

MR. PRESIDENT, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, 'territory belonging to the United States,' as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets....We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.

...
The Declaration [of Independence] applies only to people capable of self-government. How dare any man prostitute this expression of the very elect of self-governing peoples to a race of Malay children of barbarism, schooled in Spanish methods and ideas? And you who say the Declaration applies to all men, how dare you deny its application to the American Indian? And if you deny it to the Indian at home, how dare you grant it to the Malay abroad?
-- Senator Albert J. Beveridge, in the U.S. Senate, January 9, 1900

The dozen years since the sunset of the U.S.-Soviet clash have seen the hopes of millions of people for a new dawn of freedom and equality across the world dashed because of a process of globalization that has put the interests of corporations and capital ahead of those of the people. Inequalities within and between countries are immense; a few hundred people now have more wealth than the poorest two billion. It is a telling part of the rules of the World Trade Organization, created in 1995, that a country may protect its military industries under the rubric of national security but may not protect its water supplies under the rubric of the essentials of life.

In response to darkening prospects, new forms of solidarity are emerging worldwide and transnationally. People are rising up to protect their water resources, as they did in Bolivia against Bechtel Corporation, whose sales are twice Bolivia's Gross Domestic Product. Bechtel filed a lawsuit against Bolivia after Bolivia cancelled a water privatization contract. But Bolivia has found interesting company. On July 1, 2002, the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, where Bechtel has its headquarters, passed a resolution in solidarity with the people of Bolivia, and asked Bechtel to drop its lawsuit.² Slowly and hesitantly, a struggle for global democracy and survival, and in opposition to militarist, corporate-dominated globalization, is emerging.

---

Statue of Gandhi in Tavistock Square, London. Winston Churchill thought it was "nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi...parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King [the British Viceroy in New Delhi]." Many Britishers did not agree then and, as the many visitors to Gandhi's statue attest, do not agree now. (Photo credit: Allan Matthews http://allanmatthews.8m.com/london/)

---

Global inequalities, and the repression they require for their maintenance, have been increasingly compared to South African apartheid operating on a global scale - that is, to global apartheid. As Richard Falk has pointed out in his analysis of globalization, the facts are so compelling that the analogy has suggested itself even to establishment thinkers:

Schelling's answer, which he himself found "stunning and depressing," was that a world state under present conditions would look like South Africa under apartheid. But the political units of the world system are states, which have dominant nationalities, whose place in the world scheme is analogous to that of the Whites in South African apartheid. In this system, borders are the instruments of segregation. The struggle for democracy in a global society, then, is in essential ways the global equivalent of a struggle for civil rights and for desegregation.

The period since the Berlin Wall fell has seen the intensification of corporate-dominated economic globalization, including the creation of a new supranational body, the World Trade Organization, to complement the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These developments have entrenched the domination of multinational capital over people. There have been increasing restrictions on the mobility of the vast majority of people in the world. Anti-immigrant sentiment has risen and draconian laws against immigrants, documented or not, have been passed, even as the Western powers demand that Third World countries open up to Western capital and commodities. The walls within the European Union have come down as part of the same process by which walls against the majority of the people of the Third World have become higher and more bloody.

This dynamic is characteristic of the apartheid idea of freedom, an exclusionary freedom reserved for a select few. The Afrikaner votaries of apartheid exemplified by Dominee Nel, the European-Americans who under the rubric of Manifest Destiny claimed a God-given right to occupy the continental United States and conquer, confine, expel, or kill those in the way (Native Americans and Mexicans), and Senator Beveridge's views that extended those ideas across the oceans are all illustrations of the ideological school that freedom is divisible and exclusionary.

The supposed lack of any one of a number of things is enough to justify conquest, expropriation, exploitation, and even genocide -- fitness, civilization, modernity, Christianity, supposed deficiency in intelligence due the size of brains or craniums (an argument also applied to women in the last half of the nineteenth century), the possession of too much of something (such as melanin), or too little (such as technology). In other words, this concept of freedom is based on inequality for which a variety of earthly and divine sanctions have been invented. It creates choice, prosperity, and mobility for some, at the cost of limiting or reducing it for others, generally with some rationalizing and moralistic cover. We might call this the apartheid school of freedom. Another feature of this school is that the select few often claim that the prerogative of exclusionary freedom is actually for the benefit of the subjugated -- bringing democracy, technology, modernity (often tellingly symbolized not by science or rationality, but by McDonald's and Coca-Cola) achieved at great cost to the select few ("the White Man's burden," "foreign aid," and so on).

The core argument is as old as slavery, across cultures and civilizations. Aristotle supported and rationalized slavery. So did Saint Augustine, who endorsed the prerogatives of the slave master to own, dominate, and punish slaves as part of Christian doctrine. In his monumental work, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, one of the founding philosophical-theological works of institutional Christianity, he argued that a person who was a slave was being punished for his prior sins as part of a divine plan. He must therefore submit to the slave-master, the paterfamilias, who, as part of the same plan, had the duty to mete out punishment to the slave during worldly existence. God would take care of everyone equally, according to their merits (including obedience), after death.³ This doctrine is remarkably similar to the one that has been (and is) used across cultures and through the ages to subjugate women to the fathers of their households. Another analogy is to found in the subjugation of Dalits in India, the so-called "Untouchables" in the Hindu hierarchy, consigned to the lowest rung of the economic and social existence by the upper castes.

The core of any form of apartheid, whether local or global, is the assertion of power by the privileged, under the guise of superiority, for the overall purpose of securing unequal economic benefits, often with the accompanying rationalization that it is, after all, for the benefit of those who are being dominated. Such privilege cannot long be maintained without the threat and use of violence, intimidation, and fear that creates exclusion by race, caste, nationality, or gender. Since the United States now leads the perpetuation of global apartheid, it is important to consider the specificity of the U.S. historical background to it. (Not that any other power using any other religion or ideology would do better. There is ample evidence, past and present, that it would not.)

It was during Andrew Jackson's time that the fervor for land-grabbing in the name of God, Christianity, and civilization, soon to be known as "Manifest Destiny," reached fever pitch, giving a broader, militarist and messianic expression to U.S. nationalism that is much in evidence today. Indeed, the use of the term "nation" to describe the United States became popular among northerners during the heyday of Manifest Destiny as the code-word for the Whites only westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans. In the same period "federalism" came to be a code-word for southerners' assertion of their slave-owning property prerogatives at the expense of African-Americans. Jacksonian democracy extended suffrage to White men regardless of property, but did so on trails covered with tears, broken treaties, and blood.

It was a time when European settlers were terrorized by the idea of violence by Native Americans, just as southern slave-owners, mindful of the Haitian revolution, were terrorized by the idea of a slave revolt. And both these kinds of violence did occur, sometimes with terrible ferocity against innocents. Nat Turner's small army of rebellious slaves, longing to be free, not only killed male slave-owners, but also women and children, on the night that they decided would be the start of their war of independence. Native Americans not only fought soldiers in valiant wars of resistance to European conquest; from time to time they also visited terrible acts of violence upon settlers and their families.

It is not a rationalization of such violence, but rather an assertion of historical truth, to note that it was rooted in and was a reaction to the violence and injustice of slavery and genocide initiated and sustained by an invading and oppressive system that denied the humanity of slaves and Native Americans. Here are three examples of privation and terror experienced by slaves from the life of perhaps the best known of Nat Turner's African-American contemporaries, Frederick Douglass:

Slavery and near-slavery continued into the twentieth century, in Stalin's Soviet Union, in Hitler's Germany, and in global capitalism, where it is still rife. It enters the world economy in a variety of ways, from silk to sex. For example, a million children are forced into the international sex trade each year; many of them are "bought and sold like chattel" in what is a multi-billion dollar global business.

These historical and current vignettes of global capitalism are reflected in the aggregate data on the structure of global economy and society as global apartheid. Table 1 shows the economic and social indicators from a time when apartheid in South Africa was still in its heyday - the mid-1970s.

The Historical Dynamic

The static data from a single year do not show the whole historical dynamic, of course. That is a much larger enterprise, the elements of which have been coming into clearer view now that the fog created by the U.S.-Soviet confrontation is lifting. For instance, Mike Davis, in his book Late Victorian Holocausts, provides considerable evidence of how the confluence of Victorian imperialism and the weather produced immense death and famine from Brazil to India to China. (The photographs below reveal the grave nature of the situation in India.) In the same period, the last half of the nineteenth century, food supply in Western Europe and in the extensions of Europe, mainly into North America, was improving, wages were rising, and the differences in the daily conditions of living among the working people of the West. That food came from the lands to which Europe exported its surplus populations, from colonies like India, and, in the case of Germany, from a Russia in a severe debt crisis, with the Czar selling food to pay for weapons, for imperial adventures, and for luxuries for the tiny elite.

---

Famine victims, India, late nineteenth century. The staggering death toll from famine in Victorian India – about 7 million in the 1876-78 famine alone – was the result of the British policy of exporting food from India and collecting harsh taxes even in times of serious drought. The grain imports in Britain were to improve British diets and simultaneously keep grain prices stable. In recent years, as India has moved to conform to the era of market liberalization, it is again exporting food even as people starve in some parts of the country. (Photo courtesy Mike Davis)

---

Under such circumstances the population of Western Europe and its extensions expanded rapidly, at first without a concomitant increase in wages. (See Figure 1.) After the French revolution and the invention of the steam engine, imperialism and technology combined to enable the massive export of poverty and a historic re-organization of the world's labor to include trade in bulk commodities. From mid-nineteenth century onwards, there was a systematic destruction of the local economies in the Third World and their re-orientation to serve the requirements of the West, a pattern that continues to this day.

The only partial break in these trends came with the increasing demands for independence in the Third World in a variety of methods from violent revolutions to Gandhian non-violence. It was in that period that the population of the Third World began to increase in a manner similar to that of Europe from 1500 onwards. Population dynamics when seen through the lens of the development of capitalism rather than of the whole world lumped together, as many environmentalists have tended to do, yields a different picture. The vast increase in Western population and the lands that they occupied between 1500 and 1900 was accompanied by the development of technology and culture of limitless consumption for everyone, based essentially on the ideas of limitless consumption for the kings and pharaohs of the past. In the period from the onset of imperialism, about 1500, to the onset of the struggles for freedom (early nineteenth century) the population of the West grew about twice as much as that of India, China, and Africa. (See Figure 1.) That growth was accompanied by an ecosystem-destroying economic system that is at the core of the unsustainable and ecologically disastrous path the world is on today. In other words, the connection of population and environment needs to be recast in the technical and economic historical context of imperialism and of independence movements.

---

Figure 1: Based on data presented in The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, Table B10. Maddison, 2001. Total West includes W. Europe, the United States, and other western offshoots outside of Latin America. Population indices are normalized to 100. For example, if in a given year the index is 200, the population of that region has doubled over that period of time.

---

Figures 1 to 3 show historical population indices, grain imports to the UK, and wage comparisons -- essential aspects of the development of global apartheid. From the fifteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century, the mobility by large numbers of people was either of Europeans, as when they migrated to the Western Hemisphere, or under their control, as exemplified by the slave trade and the transport of indentured workers. The rise of independence movements, more integrated global culture at the elite level, and rising wages in the West that gave rise to imperatives for import of cheap labor, led to movements of people from the Third World to the West. As these numbers began to grow, the controls on the movement of the poor grew with them, until the modern system of passports and visas and restrictions on the mobility of the poor have grown into vast, militarized bureaucracies enforcing borders in a manner not much different from slave-owners using the power of the state to capture fugitives.

---

Figure 2: Based on data presented in International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750-1988, Table C10. Mitchell, 1992.

Figure 3: Based on data presented in Oil Prices and the Crises of Debt and Unemployment: Methodological and Structural Aspects, Figure 1, Makhijani, 1983; Rethinking Wages and Competitiveness in the Eighteenth Century: Britain and South India, Parthasarthi, in Past and Present: a journal of historical studies, No. 158, February, 1998; Real Wages and Relative Factor Prices in the Third World before 1940: What Do They Tell Us About the Sources of Growth, Table 1, Williamson, October 1998; Real Wages in Europe and Asia: A First Look at Long Term Patterns, Allen, 2001.

Abolishing borders

Maria Jimenez, Board Member of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, has noted the role of national borders in the global economy in a manner that evokes the policed restrictions on slaves. The following observations are from an unpublished paper she shared with me: 

It is, therefore, not only Stalinist borders that were designed to repress people by keeping them in. The borders of global apartheid, designed to keep the poor out of the regions where the wealth of the world has been accumulated, are also effective in keeping people in the low wage areas to which global capitalism has confined them. This reality is most starkly in view along the U.S. border with Mexico. In maintaining these exclusionary and confining borders, the cooperation of the political and business elites across the borders of states is essential, though some intra-elite tensions do result, as for instance between the governments of Mexico and the United States. In these areas, the United States and other Western countries that have cherished democracies at home have routinely and systematically sponsored client regimes that can rival among the bloodiest in human history.

Today, the United States is using borders as a tool in the "War on Terror." But, whether by design or not, the U.S. government's conduct of that war fits in with Manifest Destiny ideology. The fact that the terrorists who committed the mass murders of September 11, 2001 were visitors to the United States under various false pretenses has been used to create a perpetual war and a vast "homeland security" bureaucracy. It has tended to create an indiscriminate taint on the foreign-born including students, immigrants, Arabs (of all religions), and Muslims. It is a dangerous approach which implicitly, at least, fails to recognize that a home-grown European-American terrorist like Timothy McVeigh, who had a great deal of ideological and racial company in the United States and Europe, might have a considerable amount in common with foreign-born terrorists. Instead, terrorists of European-American and Christian background become exceptions, people who have gone astray as individuals, like McVeigh or the children who massacred their schoolmates at Columbine High School in Colorado, and unlike the vast majority. In contrast, stereotyping is the basis of the dragnet of spying, arrests, imprisonment without charges, deportation, and other violations of human rights of people, especially Muslims and Arabs, which are coming to typify the War on Terror.

The approach is dangerous to freedom and it is counterproductive. It ignores or downplays factors that are central to a reduction of terrorism risks and to the enhancement and spread of freedom, including the following:

• the search for terrorists is a one-in-a-million search in which the engaged and free participation of people around the world and the full diversity of people in the United States is needed;
• one-in-five children in the United States lives in a family with at least one foreign-born person, so instilling fear in the foreign-born, rather than providing security and inspiring free cooperation through respectful conduct, tends to inhibit the flow of potentially vital information;
• the prosperity and even the functioning of the U.S. economy, from strawberry fields to Silicon Valley to universities and hospitals to chicken factories to research and development laboratories in large corporations, depends on immigrants;
• threats of war are likely to cause the relatively strong to arm themselves, the weak to become more resentful and think about acquiring nuclear weapons as a counter to U.S. power, and allies to become bewildered, alarmed, and possibly uncooperative.

The counterproductive nature of the War on Terror is plain to see after two wars and more than a year-and-a-half. Osama bin Laden and several of his top lieutenants are still at large. The perpetrator(s) of the anthrax attacks in 2001 in the United States is also not in custody. The governments of two of Pakistan's four provinces are now under the control or strong influence of Islamic fundamentalists, a first in Pakistan's history.

The urgency of the search for Osama bin Laden and anthrax-man has receded. It took a back seat to the War on Iraq. A dispassionate overview might conclude that many or most of the high-priority elements of the War on Terror make little sense as an anti-terrorist enterprise. But it does fit much better with an imperial aim of creating a vast military presence for controlling, among other things, the most important oil and gas resources on the planet (see accompanying article).

There are some exceptions to these restrictions on mobility. Migration of elites is welcomed in the West to some extent, especially of young trained people who fill professions with labor shortages (though, in a display of capitalist family values, their families are often not equally welcome). The cost of their education constitutes a vast, uncounted source of foreign aid to the West from the Third World. There are also the workers who fill unwanted low wage jobs. They are also let in, but more reluctantly. The concentration of the resources of the planet into the West, the independence of the Third World, and the rise in the means of mobility have also meant that huge numbers of people want to go where the financial resources and the opportunities on the planet are concentrated.

These and other features of the global economy, which distinguish most modern migration and modern borders from slavery, do not change the essential and violent role of borders in deepening the low wage areas separated from the high wage areas, so that capital can move across borders to exploit them at wages that are kept far below the productivity of labor relative to capitalist countries. The marriage of the armed power of the state with the financial power of corporations in the context of the free flow of capital and goods and the restricted flow of workers is antithetical to human equality and freedom. It also leads the world in a direction that is the opposite of the one needed for the achievement of a system of governance, from the local to the global, that will ensure that the moral code that is expected of individuals, for instance in the form respect for the life of one's neighbors and for future generations, also applies to human institutions, especially the most powerful ones, governments and corporations.

The juridical foundation towards such a goal has mostly been created, at least in theory, in the recognition that all human beings have equal rights. This has come about over the last two and a half centuries in the course of the struggles of ordinary people around the world for freedom and equality and against slavery, colonialism, male domination, and intense economic exploitation. Most of these legal instruments date from the last half of the twentieth century, when the freedom movements in Asia and Africa achieved a measure of success and imperialism as an ideology came into disrepute. But, as Jimenez points out, none of these declarations, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, assert the right to global mobility for the world's people:

This lack of juridical standing for a right of mobility across borders has large implications for the majority of the world's people. For instance, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration speaks of workers' rights such as "equal pay for equal work." But, while the right to earn equal pay for equal work is now recognized many countries at least in theory, the inequality of pay across borders is still legally permitted - indeed, it is often promoted and trumpeted as a "comparative advantage."⁵

As another example, consider the right to asylum. It was the one practical route to escaping the oppression of being forced to stay inside borders. But it has eroded considerably, since its anti-Soviet, anti-communist ideological usefulness for capitalism is almost done. In the absence of a global right of mobility, the Declaration's recognition of a right of people to leave their countries or to seek asylum has become, for the oppressed in global capitalism, the equivalent of the fabled law that equally forbids the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.

Richard Falk has articulated the legal aspect of the right of global mobility brilliantly in his book Predatory Globalization. The world community, including its governments, regarded South African apartheid as a crime against humanity. There was an international treaty that codified that crime and detailed its particulars. One might then ask, why should global apartheid not be similarly regarded? If assistance to South African apartheid, though legal under South African law, was regarded as a crime under international law, then why should national laws that confine the poor to the global equivalent of apartheid-created "bantustans" be regarded any differently? After all, as Falk points out, Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights entitles everyone in the world "to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized." When seen in this way, the demand for a right of global mobility in a system of global apartheid is a demand to end global segregation - it is essential the world counterpart of the ending of violently enforced segregation in South Africa and the United States prevalent not so long ago.

But what is the practical process by which this right will be achieved? It is clear that it will not be realized overnight. I believe that it cannot be realized separate from other aspects of the struggle for peace and justice - for nuclear disarmament, for decent jobs, for protection of the planet from increasing greenhouse gas emissions, for the equality of women in all societies. But it will surely never be achieved if it is never formulated.

The formulation of the demand does not solve the problem of the process of getting there, of course. When one reviews the results of the three great non-violent struggles of the twentieth century - in India, in South Africa, and in the Civil Rights movement in the United States -- a crucial problem about the application of Gandhian principles becomes evident. While love is necessary for universal freedom and equality, it is not enough. The most important and enduring piece of evidence is this: The love of mothers has not been enough to prevent men in their collectivity and as individuals from becoming oppressors of women.⁶

Or consider the political sphere. For instance, the love that Gandhi advocated for and showed to the British was not enough to prevent divide-and-rule politics on the part of the British; much less did it persuade the rulers of Britain to tear down the walls that still keep out from Britain the heirs of the people that British imperialism impoverished. Instead, those walls are higher and more militarized today. This outcome was perhaps foreshadowed by Churchill's 1931 comment on Gandhi, at a time when Gandhi was trying to convince Indians to love the people of the occupying power even while trying to achieve freedom from their imperial institutions:

How the exercise of a more stubborn, loving, and successful non-violence can create a process by which the powerfully armed will give up their instruments of terror and the exploitative economic system in whose service that official terror is exercised is an unsolved problem in the struggle for global democracy.

The seeds of the solution, are, I believe, to be found in Martin Luther King's hand that was extended to the people of Vietnam and the world in the last year of his life. On April 4, 1967, he joined his historic leadership of the struggle for civil rights in the United States with the struggle against the U.S. war on Vietnam (known as the Vietnam War in the United States and the American War in Vietnam). Further, he said that he "was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such" because the military machine was a vast drain on resources in essential conflict with human needs at home. And he also declared his solidarity with the people of Vietnam.

A year later, in a piece that was published posthumously, he declared his solidarity with the people of the world and called for a "revolution in American values." In it, he made an indictment of militarism that rings true today of the War on Terror:

This revolution in values is occurring in corners that have not yet had much amplification from the megaphones of modern media that daily broadcast the threats of war that are loudly made. For instance, Peace Brigades International uses the higher profile of citizens of capitalist countries to protect people in war zones in places like Columbia and Chiapas.⁷ There are efforts to try to create a standing Peace Force and to oppose the untrammeled militarism of many governments.⁸ Traditional non-violence efforts continue in communities and countries around the world. A fine statue of Gandhi in Tavistock Square in London (see cover photo), still attracts respectful attention to his life and ideas (as he did in person in his day in that city), as well as flowers, Churchill notwithstanding.

There are millions of families with roots in more than one country and more than one continent. Many of them bridge the divide of the global apartheid, including the greatest physical boundary in that structure, the U.S.-Mexican border. For some, this is a source of fear. For the struggle against global apartheid and for global democracy, it is a source of hope. A global women's movement, a global environmental movement, and a movement against corporate dominated globalization are all reaching across the divide of global apartheid. Workers and family farmers are organizing across borders. Large U.S. labor unions are dropping or have dropped their anti-immigrant positions of not so long ago. Despite the U.S. government's hostility to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the State of California has adopted standards that will lead to curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. In November 2001, the people of San Francisco voted for a ballot measure that authorizes "the city to issue $100 million in revenue bonds for renewable energy systems, including wind and solar power" in a move that is seen not only as protective of the environment, but also as a vote against looming oil wars.

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay have agreed to greatly increase mobility rights for all their citizens, without raising more barriers against mobility of others, in stark contrast to the anti-immigrant walls of global apartheid that have been going up in Europe in the process of its internal integration. Such struggles and activities carry the seeds of the delegitimization of global apartheid in the same way that hands across borders converted South African apartheid from being viewed by some as a gift of God to an unacceptable social and economic system even by most South African Whites (though by no means all of them).

But still, despite these indications of a direction, the practical structure of the struggle to successfully and fundamentally shift the power equation so as to create a path for the elimination of global apartheid still remains to be elucidated. The International Criminal Court, and the principle of the rule of law based on justice, freedom, and equality, may provide one focus for that struggle. On April 11, 2002, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court got the minimum number of ratifications to go into effect. While the U.S. government is flouting its own best traditions and undermining the treaty, just the fact of its existence and the reality that it recognizes war crimes against women as crimes against humanity, are immense triumphs for freedom and equality. For the first time, there is an international legal instrument based on the idea that everyone from the poorest peasant woman to the most powerful head of state are equal before the law. Were this court to become truly universal in its jurisdiction, without ifs, ands, or buts, it could be the first substantial step to creating a juridical system that would embody the Jeffersonian idea that there must be "one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively." That would give universal substance at last to his dramatic and stirring declaration, "all men are created equal" and extend it, really, to people of both sexes, throughout the world.

That nascent ideal was already in trouble in Jefferson's time, symbolized perhaps by Tom Paine's fate. Tom Paine, the immigrant who penned Common Sense and inspired the Declaration of Independence, and who fumed against the slave trade in 1775, died in 1809 almost alone. His funeral was attended by six people, including two African Americans and a French woman and her son. She was there, she said, in gratitude for his contributions to freedom in France; her son was witness to his service to liberty in the United States. The struggle for a universal freedom that would recognize the humanity of everyone equally is clearly not yet done.

⁸ For information on this "peace army," conceptualized during the 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, see http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/.