December 4, 2002

By Camille T. Taiara

THE IMPENDING WAR against Iraq has sparked a battle inside one of the nation's most influential environmental groups that threatens to turn back the clock on its long-standing crusade for multilateral disarmament and peaceful alternatives to war as basic prerequisites for ecological well-being.

For months more progressive members of the Sierra Club have been urging the organization's national leadership to adopt a formal position against the Bush administration's war cause and its environmental consequences. Three local divisions – the San Francisco Bay, Loma Prieta (South Bay), and Redwood (northwestern California) Chapters – adopted internal resolutions to this end. Indeed, some local members have already been weighing their support for politicians on their stance against the Bush administration. Insiders say Rep. Tom Lantos's fervent support of a military campaign against Iraq played a critical role in losing him the Loma Prieta Chapter's endorsement in last month's election. (As the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives' Foreign Relations Committee, Lantos has been playing a critical role in garnering support for the war effort.) Meanwhile, members of the San Francisco Bay Chapter have sought to publicly commend Rep. Nancy Pelosi for voting against granting President George W. Bush war powers.

Over the past couple of months other chapters throughout the nation adopted antiwar resolutions similar to those of the three northern California branches – as did the Sierra Club's own International Committee. A dozen former Sierra Club directors signed on to an Oct. 3 letter urging the national board to follow suit.

But higher-ups have been hesitant to call the Bush administration to task about its military buildup in the Middle East. Instead, in an Oct. 15 e-mail, Sierra Club national conservation director Bruce Hamilton directed staff specifically not to take a formal stance on the war. "Only the [national Conservation Governance Committee] or the Board can take a position on this international issue," Hamilton wrote. "We ... had one situation where a Chapter refused an endorsement of a good incumbent because he had voted for the Congressional war resolution," he continued, referring to the Loma Prieta Chapter's refusal to support Lantos. "This is not appropriate.... Any of you are free to march in protests if you want to, but don't speak as a Club representative or carry SC signs."

Internal pressure eventually led the board to adopt a position related to the U.S.-Iraq conflict at its Nov. 16 meeting. "The Sierra Club supports disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," reads the resolution, which goes on to urge the U.S. government to decrease its dependence on fossil fuels in favor of clean, renewable energy sources.

But discontents among the club's rank and file say the narrowly worded statement is a far cry from what they were hoping for. "It ignores all of our policies," says one longtime member of the Loma Prieta Chapter who argues he and others like him want to see Sierra Club leaders "just apply the rules."

The Sierra Club's most basic tenets call for multilateral disarmament and diplomatic alternatives to war. Some members point out that the Bush administration has a deplorable track record on both issues: It's reneged on international treaties aimed at curbing weapons proliferation and protecting basic human rights, they say. It's hacked away at national and international environmental regulations. And it's undermined the efficacy of international law by choosing to rely on armed force to solve its international disputes – even going so far as to adopt a first-strike military policy.

"I think we made a very principled statement on Iraq," says Sierra Club vice president Larry Fahn, who explains the organization is fighting the Bush administration on a variety of fronts, including it's policies on logging, energy, global warming, clean air, and chemical contamination.

Still, it would seem the Sierra Club's board of directors has opted to silence those of its staff who would question the United States' military ventures. Also adopted Nov. 16: a resolution reiterating Hamilton's e-mail decree forbidding staff from taking public positions on any military conflicts that may arise.