 Welcome, Anna Law. I'm Mark Shklav, host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. Today, we're going across the Sea of Public Opinion to speak with David Strand. Davey, as he prefers to be called, is a lifelong political activist. It has a long professional career that spans the United States from being elected to the city council in his birthplace of Cleveland, Ohio, serving as chair of the Marin County Democratic Party and practicing immigration law in San Francisco for 34 years before he and his wife retired in Hawaii eight years ago. Davey recently wrote an editorial for the Honolulu Star Advertiser about war versus diplomacy. The editorial was titled Replace Wasteful Wars with Diplomacy and began by discussing the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan. I want to welcome Davey. How are you? Good to see you. And I wanted to ask you my first question. What motivated you to write that editorial? Well, I'm grateful to be able to discuss this issue, which is close to my heart. When I was a teenager, I looked forward to serving in an avian and seeing the world. But when I was in college, the Vietnam War was expanding. And I felt we were doing absolutely the wrong thing in Vietnam. And I became a kind of an anti-war activist. And subsequently, over the years, I was involved personally and with various organizations that sought peace and peaceful change in the world. When I moved to Hawaii, where we came eight years ago, my wife is originally from here, I was just taken aback by the pervasiveness of the military in Hawaii, more than I'd ever seen before. There were planes flying over and military vehicles and people in uniform and restaurants and shopping centers. And that kind of motivated me to really think that we shouldn't have all this now. But specifically regarding the article, when Biden withdrew our forces from Afghanistan, I thought it was a great thing because almost virtually everybody thinks that we haven't accomplished much there and it has been a waste of our efforts. But it's been hard to get out. Barack Obama didn't get us out of there. He wanted to and Trump didn't. But Biden did and he did it quickly. But he got all sorts of criticism for it. He didn't do it right. Although what I call Monday morning quarterbacks said, oh, you didn't do this right. You didn't do that right. You left a lot of people there. You know, we evacuated over 100,000 people from Afghanistan in a very short time. Very, very impressive. I think what he did was wonderful and he deserves lots and lots of credit for doing it. And you think that that was the right decision but why? Why was withdrawing from Afghanistan the right decision? Well, for 20 years we supported it. The fact that the Taliban took over so quickly as soon as we were going is evidence of the fact that our 20 years support for a very unpopular and corrupt government just wasn't doing any good. So I think it's wonderful that we got out. Okay. And I'm going to put up one of the quote number one from your editorial. You talk about the withdrawal, hopefully leading to immunization of our military presence throughout the world and increase in utilizing diplomacy in our foreign affairs. This is a direct quote from your editorial. And you talk about several reasons why war is not in the national interests of the United States and is generally harmful to the world. And that's another quote from your editorial. Tell us what's behind, why do you believe this? What is your reasons for these making these statements? First of all, our military actions have been counterproductive to our national purpose and our foreign policy. I think it is accepted that the time and energy and money and lives we sacrificed in Vietnam and in Iraq and in Afghanistan really didn't achieve purposes that we hoped that they would. In fact, they achieved the opposite purposes. For example, in the Middle East, even the short supposedly successful first Gulf War in which we drove Hussein out of Kuwait, as a result of that war, we had left troops throughout the Middle East. And those troops built resentment by Islamic fundamentalists that they used to recruit the people who became the terrorists that struck throughout the world, including the attack on the World Trade Center, 9-11. So basically, it's been counterproductive. That's one reason. Another reason is that war always involves lots of killing. That obviously is bad and sometimes necessary, but particularly non-combatants, innocent people are killed. Even a war like World War II, which was an important war that we had to be in and had to win, but it wasn't such a good thing for the millions of people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Tokyo and many, many, many German cities. So war essentially, unless you're really certain it's worthwhile, it's a pure evil for those people who are innocent victims. Another thing is that it destabilizes the world. War usually creates lots and lots of refugees. The people are, their lives are ripped apart, they're separated from their homes and their families, and they seek refuge elsewhere. And the places that they go, the people there tend to resent them because their own governments are spending time and energy and money worrying about refugees rather than their own people. So xenophobia expands and it's just bad for that to happen. War also is a diversion of our energies and money from all kinds of other needs. When I see a black helicopter flying across the sky over IA here, military helicopters would seem to go by all the time. I think, well, couldn't that money be better spent on maybe air conditioning the public schools in Hawaii? We have so many needs having to do with poverty and health and education and environmental issues. A good example is Red Hill, for example. We've diverted our energies to doing other things in the military away from more essential needs, and that's not good. And another reason is the focus on the military, I believe, gives too much credence to the leadership of military people who make their decisions based on military factors. And there's all these side issues that are caused by that, such as PTSD and other mental health problems of our wounded warriors, such as sexual harassment in the military because of the concentration of testosterone-rich young men. It's the environmental issues that the military doesn't really pay enough attention to. Again, I would mention Red Hill. So these are the kinds of reasons that I think that war is an not very effective pool of our foreign policy. And you also, I mean, in your last statements, you were also saying that, talking a little bit about World War II, I mean, is there any possible military action that will do some good? Yeah, I think there is at times. I think that UN peacekeeping forces, for example, are military, and they separate the people that are otherwise going to fight. I think that perhaps our bombing in Bosnia of the Serbian troops there saved a lot of lives there. And I think at times, no fly zones can be effective in preventing worse carnage. So yeah, sometimes, sometimes. And one of the interesting quotes that you, I'm going to put up number four, is you talk about the United States having a great many military bases around the world and troops stationed more than 100 countries. I mean, we don't hear too much about that. But what is that about? All around the world, for example, in Germany, we still have 56,000 troops approximately, many bases. Now, why do we have troops in Germany? Originally, they went there because we defeated Germany. We occupied the country that we beat in World War II. And then we kept them there because we were threatened by the Soviet Union and its expansion tendencies. But this Germany is now a very rich country, a real ally of ours. The Soviet Union is no longer there. And why do we still have 56,000 troops in Germany? But let's look other places. Look at Saudi Arabia. I think we have five, five air force bases, five major air force bases there. And what did they cause but resentment? And as I said, kind of an incentive for the Islamic fundamentalist militants to organize their opposition to America, which they see as kind of a continuation of the Crusades. In the middle of Africa, Niger, we have three bases where we have drone stationed. We have a counterinsurgency people there. And we have surveillance in Niger. We have these all over the place. We have these, and I don't think there, those are just examples, but they are in 100 countries around the world. China, by the way, has, as far as I'm aware, only one actual base in a foreign country, which is in Djibouti, where we also have a base. Well, and, you know, so what is the alternative you're proposing here? Opposing war, I understand that. You say that military action sometimes has a positive result, but then you're pointing to having all these bases, the United States has all these bases and military all over the world. What is your alternative? What are you proposing? The alternative is non-military diplomacy. That means treaties that we have with other countries. That means some involvement in international institutions like the United Nations. It means the use of economics, economic incentives, economic investment. It means sharing information and educating people in the world. It means using negotiation kind of tactics to solve disputes. I'd like to mention a couple of examples that I've been personally involved with. Northern Ireland, for example. 300 years ago, William the Orange, William of Orange and Protestant defeated King James the Catholic, and since that time, there has been tremendous friction and often violence between the two communities in Northern Ireland. In the 80s, I went to Northern Ireland with a group called the Irish Forum, and we wanted to be part of understanding the process, understanding the troubles as they call them, and being part of the peace process. We talked to people, we talked to leaders of both sides and all leaders of different factions. I, in fact, spent some time talking to people in prisons. Prisoners at that time, 80% of the prisoners were political prisoners. Many of them were there because of assassinations. The people I was interviewing had been, you know, were either terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on which side you were in. Anyway, when Clinton became president, he really focused on this, and he brought American diplomacy. He's appointed Senator Mitchell of Maine as a special envoy and really focused American energy on that. We had lots of, we had a lot of influence with the British government, with the Irish government. We put in money as incentives. We did a lot of things, and it was successful. A peace agreement was signed, and it's pretty much held since that time. That's one example. Another example of an organization I was involved with was called the San Francisco International Program, which brought young professional people from around the world for training. We would set up training assignments in American institutions, and they would live with American families, and then they would go back to their home countries. I believe that, you know, we had special programs for people after the fall of communism from the former Soviet block, and we had a special program from people from South Africa after they fall of apartheid. Prior to that, because of their race could not move ahead in industry or government or nonprofit organizations or anything, and those people go back and they become influential, and they become friends of the United States because we treated them nicely and taught them something. For example, friends became the deputy police chief of Johannesburg, and the head parliamentarian of the South African parliament, and the head of the South African equivalent of the Smithsonian Institution. Those kinds of programs really make a difference. As does education. American education of foreign students is a great thing. People come to America, they are attracted to America, and they like Americans when they're here, and they're not going to want to bomb us and kill us when they go home. Those are examples. And what I hear you saying is people should talk to one another, and that's your idea of diplomacy, or that's your concept is that getting people to talk to one another as the governments did with the Irish situation. And as you have brought people to America to study, they get to know each other, and that will make a wall against killing each other or fighting. Well, that's a big part of it, plus negotiations, plus economic incentives, plus the support of international institutions that are treaties and things like the United Nations that help keep the peace. Look at Europe, for example, the European community. Europe had centuries of wars between all these countries, and since there's a United Europe, for most of Europe, there has been very little war there. And I want to go back a little bit. You were talking about the military in Hawaii, and in your article, you also talk about the ongoing military buildup in Hawaii. And your opinion is that, well, what is your opinion? Let me ask you. I mean, because there are people in Hawaii that say that the military is a great economic boom for Hawaii. It is certainly a great economic boom for Hawaii. And some of it is pretty positive. For example, the Pearl Harbor shipyard, which repairs and ships and so forth for the Navy employs about 5,000 people, which only 10% are actually in the military. But a lot of the other things are really unnecessary. We're bringing in more Marines to do training and artillery training in EVA. We're bringing in these huge drones to station them here. And I think that while that is helpful, of course, to the economy, if we could retool our thinking so that the other things, other governmental programs that had diplomatic positive aspects would be here. For example, many, not many, a few friends of mine who were in the Peace Corps did their training in Hawaii. For example, the East-West Center has programs that bring people to study and people to have conferences and people to have negotiations about issues of nations throughout the Pacific. And even the military itself, I think, could refocus from purely destructive kinds of things to doing positive things. The military does do humanitarian things. We have ships that go when there are disasters around the world that can help and so forth. And I think retooling within the focus of the military itself, as well as more expenditure on Peace Corps type activities. You also mentioned when we were talking China, and in your article, the next quote, the fifth quote, you mentioned that we don't understand China's Belt and Road Initiative and other non-military international development efforts where the Chinese are outpacing us. What are you talking about? What don't we understand? How are they outpacing us? They're outpacing us because I believe we are still the wealthiest nation in the world. And we still have the know-how to help countries that the Chinese are building roads and bridges and ports, but they're all linked to the Chinese economy, kind of pulling everybody into dealing with China. I think we could do a better job. We have, if we were out there, instead of having three bases in Niger, a pretty poor country, if we were focusing on countries around the world helping building harbors and controlling flooding and helping their education system educate more people who could be useful to the world and dealing with their health problems. If we did all that kind of thing, rather than the military basis, we would be much better off, I think. And China is actually kind of doing that, or I think we could do a lot better. So they're kind of ahead of the game is what you're saying and they're using a strategy that brings people together is what I hear you saying. Is that right? Yeah. It's non-military. They're putting an awful lot of money and energy into non-military efforts to bring to increase their influence in the world. Okay, now you talk about doing these diplomatic or pursuing peace, but how did we pursue peace with countries like North Korea? Good example. I was also involved with an organization, a non-profit organization, an NGO, a Korean based called Good Neighbors, what actually was involved in sending people and aid to North Korea in terms of agricultural aid and food aid in areas of need in North Korea, which are many. It's a very, very, very poor country. And there is an organization that I know of in Washington that has a committee of about 100 people of key academicians and people from faith groups and people from the non-profit groups and business that is all focused on peaceful change in North Korea. I think that with the focus of groups like that, with the fact that we have common cause with China in preventing some kind of nuclear catastrophe coming out of North Korea, we have a lot of very energetic South Koreans who are very, very eager to do something to bring peace to North Korea. So I think that we have lots of avenues and if we put the kind of energy into those, we could make a difference in North Korea and other places. Now you've talked a lot about your background in various organizations and I can see that you have been an activist for a long time. What else? I mean, what else has developed, helped to develop your philosophy about war and the pursuit of peace in the world and about your immigration law background? Has that been involved with what your thoughts are? Yeah, the immigration background helped. As an immigration lawyer, I fully recognize that our country is by far the most desirable place for most people in the world to immigrate to. No other country brings as many immigrants. People want to come here because of economic opportunity, political freedom, religious freedom, etc. And people are not flocking to China or Russia or India or Pakistan or we have a great culture and people are attracted to it. So that makes me feel proud and we have something worth supporting. Another aspect of my immigration practice that made me think a lot about this, my favorite cases were political asylum cases. These are people who are in the United States who do not want to return to their home country because of fear of persecution on the basis of political opinion or race or national origin or or other religion. And I've represented people seeking political asylum from Asia, from Africa, from Europe, from the Americas and from Pacific Islands. And so I know that there's a lot of bad guys out there in the world that are treating their own people very, very harshly. There's a lot of persecution in the world and I believe that we can help change that and it will benefit America. You know, your editorial really advocated pursuing diplomacy and peace and not military action, not war, but you received a lot of pushback from several people. One person wrote that you were not living in the real world and that the real world requires peace through strength. Another wrote that you might enjoy compromising to the brutality of the Taliban. And another wrote that you were advocating surrender to our enemies who would ultimately slit our throats. These are what people actually wrote after you did your editorial. Now, how do you respond to these comments? And I mean, are you saying that we should surrender? I mean, that's what these responses said. Well, absolutely not. I believe in an active and aggressive foreign policy. And I think we should pursue American ideals and American interests through our foreign policy. I think that, you know, but we can't, we didn't succeed in defeating the Taliban. And there are a lot of other places in the world where there are similar problems or worse problems than the Taliban. We can't fight them all, but we can have some impact on them through diplomacy. For example, Boko Haram in Africa controls parts of northern Nigeria and adjacent African countries and their treatment of women is much worse than the Taliban. You know, they have actual sex slavery, not just prostitution, but real slaves. And they use women as suicide bombers. And I mean, it's really bad. We can't solve that militarily, but there are other problems. You know, right in our own hemisphere in a country like Guatemala for decades, for hundreds of years, really, the 40% of the people who are indigenous have been pretty much repressed and brutalized by the government there. I don't think we can solve that militarily. In China, in China, lots of the goods that we get that say made in China that we buy because they're cheap were made in in reeducation centers that are really prisons, where they send political dissidents and ethnic minorities and they are brutally treated and subjected to torture. And that's in China. We certainly can't solve any problems in China militarily, right? But we are very economically interconnected with China. And we are their major customer for these all the stuff that they make. And the economic ties that we have could lead to, I think, alleviation of some of those problems. And those are, I believe in an aggressive pro-American, I believe in our ideals of our country and our democracy. And so, no, I'm not about to sit back. I'm not a defeatist. And you're not saying abolish the military? No, I'm saying abolish the military. I say cut back on a lot of their unnecessary programs. We are always developing new weapons systems, but we already have, you know, the world is covered with nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weaponry. I mean, how much more do we need? And so, yeah, I say, but we do need a military. I believe in a strong Navy, open freedom of commerce on the seas and so forth. But I don't believe we should be attacking countries and we don't need all the military equipment that we have. I think one of the reasons we have it is because of the arms industry, because they make a lot of money out of selling new and more sophisticated military equipment. I think it's their influence through their propaganda, shall we say. Also, their influence through political contributions to members of Congress. And I'm not saying that they're doing this out of any evil. They probably think they're doing the right thing and what's best for the country. But I would disagree strongly. And Let me, we have a couple minutes. I want to close, but I want to ask you the last quote I want to put up is how basically you closed your editorial. You say, I wish I knew an effective strategy to influence our government to pursue peace with the energy with which we prepare for war. Now, my question, I mean, have you given up hope? I mean, I hear you advocating, I hear that you are a person that wants peace over war. But how do we get there? Is that going to happen? I mean, what is, you know, what hope do you have? Well, it's not going struggle, but I think the Biden presidency and the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a very, very, very positive sign. I'm one of the people that most impresses me that's been involved in public life is Samantha Power, who was the UN ambassador under Barack Obama. She's a former human rights activist who is now the head of USA, the US Agency for International Development. And just before I got on this program now, I was reading the mission statement of the US Agency for International Development, USA. And their mission statement is exactly what I feel we should be doing. And I think the fact that we have people like that in significant positions in the Biden administration give us a lot of hope that that things can change. And we can come up with a foreign policy that is beneficial to us and helpful to the world and confronting some of the evil in the world through non-military means. And the military means, I can only say, just pay old again and again. Well, Davey, I want to thank you for sharing your opinion and adding more to what you wrote in your editorial for the Star Analyzer. And we'll see where we go from here. You know, this is an ongoing matter. There is a war versus diplomacy. And the question will be who wins? And hopefully we'll come to the right decision. Aloha, Davey. Thank you very much.