[statecom] [EMAIL PROPOSAL] Temporary Intro to Sudan Statement Proposal - Version #1

[Merelice]

Greetings,
In concept, I support an effort to address concerns about and
shortcomings of the current Sudan statement. At the same time:

1 - I find it interesting that the list of proposal sponsors does not
include even one of the 13 people who signed the request for an
updated  or supplemental statement that would better reflect agreement
within the party and the party's key values.

2 - It appears that the supporters of the current statement continue
to talk mostly among themselves and refuse to acknowledge or to
respect the fact that a large group of our members would like a
different approach and are not ignorant about the complexities of the
situation.

3 - It is puzzling to say we should avoid suggesting that we don't
agree on the statement and we should avoid implying that we have
changed it because of outside pressures. The fact is, we don't agree
on the statement, and we need to respond to INSIDE, not outside,
pressures.

4 - Given the apparent intransigence to consider changes or to seek
genuine agreement, I am not confident we will succeed in developing a
single new statement. So maybe we shouldn't promise something we might
not be able to deliver. But if that is the case, I and my colleagues
are likely to work to remove the statement altogether -- which I think
would be a sorry solution since I do believe we have an important
perspective to add.

I also note that the convention is going ahead with a Sudan panel.
This despite the fact that both members who support and those who
oppose the present statement have said there are more important and
more urgent matters to give our time and energy to. If just one point
of view -- in the name of so-called education or presenting the facts
-- is being represented on the panel, I believe it will reflect poorly
on the GRP's ability to listen to different voices.

I have encouraged people not to give this business the kind of energy
and attention I have given it, since so many of us agree that it has
taken a disproportionate amount of party-member time and attention. I
have stuck with it only because several of us believe it will not go
away but will continue to dog us and, more importantly, mis-represent
what we believe and who we are if it remains our sole public position.
But now I am very very tired of feeling that we are not being heard.
And responses so far to this email proposal haven't changed that
feeling.


Merelice



On 8/3/07, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> This is a statecom proposal that is being put through our email
> decision-making process.   The process is broken into two stages - a two week period for
> clarifying questions, discussion and friendly amendments and then a one week
> period to call for consensus.   for more information on the process, please go
> to:
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/StateCom/email_proposals.html/view
>
> DATE/TIMES for this email decision-making process:
> Start Discussion: 08/02/2007 11:00pm
> End Discussion/Start Call For Consensus: 08/16/2007 11:00pm
> End Call For Consensus: 08/23/2007 11:00pm
>
> SPONSORS:
> Grace Ross, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
> Ron Francis, ronwf777 at yahoo.com
> Dan Melnechuk, isis at isisdesign.com
> Gary Hicks, gooberthink06 at yahoo.com
> Mike Heichman, mikeheichman at verizon.net
>
> VERSION: 1
> TITLE: Temporary Intro to Sudan Statement Proposal
> SUMMARY:
> Given the deep dissatisfaction of some party leaders with the frame of the
> present Sudan statement and that it is clearly old; and given that there are
> real differences of opinion which will take time to work out to craft a new
> detailed statement; and given that many members who have not been opinionated want
> more facts before they make a major decision on wording our new Sudan
> statement, we would like to propose a new simple introduction to the existing
> statement.   We believe it addresses the most critical elements some people feel are
> missing from the existing statement. We would also like to date the old
> statement so it is clear how old it is and state that we will be posting an updated
> statement.
>
> We recognize that this will probably not make ANYONE happy - that is not our
> goal. Our goal is to lower the sense of urgency so that the proper process
> can take the time it needs and not overshadow all other work of the party. So,
> more than ever, the litmus test should be can you live with this so that
> others can live with it.
>
> PROPOSAL:
> 1) Introduction to be added above existing posted GRP statement on Sudan:
> "the GRP is deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan and
> supports humanitarian aid for all victims in Sudan. We call on all parties to
> respect human rights for all people in the region as well as 4th Geneva convention
> regarding attacks on noncombatants."
>
> 2) Add a date of passage* (I am verifying that this is the correct date!)
> before the existing statement included in a parenthesis with
> "(passed 01/29, 2005; updated statement presently being drafted)"