An Interview with Rocky Anderson

Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is a man who doesn’t mind going against the grain, especially when it comes to the cause of peace. Anderson served as Salt Lake City’s Mayor from 2000 to 2008. Before his political career, he practiced law in the city for 21 years and was listed in Best Lawyers in America. During this time he opposed the Reagan Administration’s attempts to overthrow the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, debating the Commander-in-Chief of the Contras and a representative of the Reagan State Department, and organizing two trips to Nicaragua so dozens of Utah residents could discover what was really happening, which was far different than the propaganda of the Reagan administration.

As mayor, Anderson rose to nationwide prominence as a champion of several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, gay and lesbian rights, and an end to the “war on drugs.”  In the lead-up to our country’s war in Iraq in 2003, Anderson was a major opponent of the invasion. He later advocated for impeachment of then-President George W. Bush in venues around the country, the only mayor of a major city to do so. The Sierra Club Distinguished Service Award, The League of United Latin American Citizens Profile in Courage Award, and the Morehouse College Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award are among the honors that have been granted to Anderson.

Anderson also ran for President of the United States on the Justice Party ticket in 2012. At the core of the Justice Party’s platform was economic, social, and environmental justice. Anderson advocated for an end to the war on drugs, for single-payer health insurance, for cleaning up our corrupt campaign finance system, for closing obsolete military bases, and against U.S. wars of aggression.

Question: When did you become interested in alternatives to war as a means of solving problems?

Answer: When I was in high school during the Vietnam War. It was very disturbing to me that we were taking millions of lives, creating such terror for an entire country, and also putting our own soldiers’ lives at risk when there was absolutely no justification for it. As it turned out—like the Mexican-American War and the Iraq War—the Vietnam War was built on a pack of lies and public misinformation.  Then there were other types of imperialist adventures that I found to be completely unjustified and immoral. I became very involved in the issue of our country’s involvement in Central America during the 1980s. I was outraged by on the U.S.-sponsored death squads in El Salvador and the U.S.-created and financed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua. I arranged and participated in two tours throughout Nicaragua to talk to supporters and opponents of the Sandinista government. Those who joined me on the trips could personally see what was going on, which was wholly different than what was being misrepresented by the Reagan administration and the mainstream media.

Question: You grew up in a Mormon household. Have the Latter Day Saints influenced you?

Answer: None of my family were fanatics about it. I went to church and was mostly bored out of my mind. One thing I did learn from my Sunday School lessons was that we should do all we can for the poor and disadvantaged. I took that lesson to heart. However, I saw a lot of hypocrisy in the LDS community when it came to African-Americans. They were given less than second-rate status in the Church until they were allowed to partake in temple ceremonies and the men were allowed to hold the priesthood in 1979. There is really quite a racist tradition in the LDS Church, going back to Brigham Young. We see much the same kind of hurtful discrimination by the LDS Church relating to gays and lesbians today.

Question: You studied philosophy at the University of Utah and later went to law school at George Washington University Law School. How did your education influence you?

Answer: It was a vital time for me. I think that my education honed my analytical and writing skills, which was crucial in my search for the truth, however inconvenient, and my efforts to bring about positive social change. At the time I chose to reject any form of organized religion, I formulated ethical guideposts, by which I still seek to live my life. Group-think and many institutions are often allowed by people to replace individual moral responsibility. My study of philosophy, particularly, impressed upon me my own responsibility to find out what is going on in the world and to take action to challenge wrong-doing.

Question: How are the issues of climate change and peace connected?

Answer: The first thing that comes to mind is that climate change is already causing wars. It’s certainly driving what’s happening in Syria, which is suffering from major droughts. Wars are almost always caused by competition for resources, such as land and oil. Karen Armstrong’s book “Fields of Blood” provides a compelling argument that the history of violence, whether within or between communities, is largely based on the exploitation of resources by those with power, against the less powerful. The pressures that lead to war are going to become so much greater as we see changes in weather patterns, including consequences such as the destruction of glaciers. In some parts of the world, glaciers, which are now melting, provide the water farmers rely on. Droughts will occur, and are occurring, because of these changing climate patterns.

War and catastrophic climate change both depend what we do in the present and the compassion we exercise toward those who come along in later generations. Most people do not see, or care about, the connection between what we do now and what will happen in our world in the future.

Presently, we do not insist that our country be constrained by laws that have been established to prevent war. Aggressive war is illegal under the United Nations Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Treaty (a basis for prosecutions for aggressive war during the Nuremberg trials). Trump’s bombing of Syria, Obama’s bombing of Libya, and Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq was all in violation of international laws against aggressive war and the War Power Clause of the United States Constitution.

It is solely Congress’s prerogative to decide whether our nation will go to war, or engage in acts of war. That was clearly decided by the founders, as reflected in the War Power Clause of the Constitution. What we do now has a lot to do with the prospects for peace in the future. Congress has not lived up to its Constitutional responsibilities to decide questions of war and peace since the war resolutions in connection with World War II. All three branches of government are responsible for an increasingly imperial presidency, leading to tyranny and a destruction of the separation of powers and system of checks and balances.

The founders didn’t want a dictator like King George to decide whether our country would engage in war. If Congress had lived up to its constitutional duty, there would have been no U.S. wars in Vietnam or Iraq. These disasters were not due only to one party. For instance, we were led into the Iraq War by members of both major political parties. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry proved to be very irresponsible in supporting and voting to give President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq because they didn’t do something as simple as to read a National Intelligence Estimate, which was readily available to them, reflecting the enormous difference of opinion within the intelligence community regarding the truth of many of President Bush’s representations regarding justifications for making war against Iraq.  If there were any justice as at the Nuremberg trials, those who supported and authorized the Iraq War should be held legally accountable for waging aggressive war. As Justice Robert Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, noted, the international laws against aggressive war, while being applied then against Germans, must apply to everyone if it is to have any meaning.

Question: What do you think of contemporary peace organizations like Diplomacy Works, Peace Action, and the Council for a Livable World?

Answer: I think most organizations like them provide good information, but they pursue a very timid strategy. Most human rights organizations do too. They must organize at the grassroots level and help to raise hell until change is achieved. Sustained mass organizing and resistance were crucial in bringing about the successes of the anti-slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and labor movements. We also witnessed some success of solidarity movements in the U.S. during the 80s, when Reagan learned the U.S. population would not support military intervention in Central America.

Question: What will it take for international law to be made and enforced?

Answer: I think the United Nations is completely worthless. They condemn this and pass resolutions on that. It’s not an organization that stands up and effectively acts when there are serious violations of international law. The United States is the greatest part of the problem. When any international court goes against our position, we destroy them. It’s our arrogance and disregard for the rule of law. It’s all really a matter of might instead of what’s right. For instance, Nicaragua went to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) to challenge the U.S.’s role in the mining of the Port of Corinto. Even Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was upset about the blatant violation of international law by our nation. The ICJ ruled against the U.S., guilty, but we simply ignored its ruling.  Until there are real teeth to international law, it isn’t a reality. More dangerously, it is a pretense at law when the most powerful, like the U.S., simply disregard it at will. Both major political parties in the U.S. have been disastrous when it comes to international law, including the lack of enforcement of the Convention Against Torture.  How can anyone call something a “law,” when someone like President Obama can simply turn a blind eye to unprecedented violations, saying we’ll just look forward and not backward?

I don’t think people in the U.S. generally have much regard for international law. We should all insist that our country must have the approval of the UN to attack another country, as provided in the United Nations Charter, which makes aggressive war illegal. There must be enforcement mechanisms in place to enforce international law if there is to be any true rule of law.

Question: What are your thoughts on President Donald Trump’s foreign policy?

Answer: His foreign policy simply based on transactions. He makes things great for the wealthy, while driving away our long-time allies and harming working people. His actions could result in major international trade wars and perhaps actual catastrophic war. He’s demeaning, he childishly calls other people (including heads of state) denigrating names, he is crude and ignorant about other cultures, and he only looks at things in terms of economic impacts on the most wealthy. We should have real concerns about the view of others around the world toward our President and our nation.

Question: Do you miss being mayor of Salt Lake City?

Answer: I miss some of what I was able to accomplish. I leveraged a lot out of being mayor. We were able to get a lot done, locally, nationally, and internationally. I was able to advocate against the Iraq War and for the impeachment of George W Bush. At the same time, we created perhaps the most comprehensive restorative justice program in the country, we expanded the respect for the rights and dignity of members of ethnic and LGBT communities, we expanded mass transit opportunities, created youth after-school and summer programs, and created some of the most effective, progressive environmental programs in the United States..

Question: Do we need a new conception of what defense means?

Answer: The “Department of Defense” is a misnomer. It’s a Department of War and we should call it its true name. I have zero concerns about being harmed by a terrorist, yet most politicians and the military-industrial complex want to instill fear in people about the threat of terrorism. It’s important to have quality intelligence, but we have lousy intelligence. The people in the intelligence community who helped promote Bush’s false narrative are traitors to our country.

Question: There is an interest in promoting progressive ideas on a municipal level. We have seen higher minimum wage campaigns on the city-level. Can cities develop a foreign policy of their own?

Answer: They can but it’s very difficult. When I was mayor of Salt Lake City I called for mayors to call for an end to the Iraq War and the Bush Presidency. They would tell me “It’s not my job to do those sorts of things,” but we each have a responsibility to stand up on moral issues. The people who stand by and allow evil to happen are enablers. There are few people who stand up and challenge wrong-doing. It’s what being a moral human being is all about.

Question: What’s up with the Justice Party these days?

Answer: They’re not making much progress, unfortunately. I stepped down from the National Steering committee. Some say that if you support a third party then you help the worst of the two major parties’ candidates win. However, it was the Democratic Party (2016) that put up such a disastrous candidate. Bernie Sanders who could have won the election if it were not for the Democratic Party elites. Bernie Sanders was up 16 points in the polls when matched with Trump in the State of Utah during the primaries. He would have won. So, with someone with the worst rankings in terms of trustworthiness and popular approval like Hillary Clinton, we end up with someone who is a misogynist, racist, and narcissist as President of our country. The Democratic Party must accept its share of the blame.