Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 20. Juli 2006 / Time Line July 20, 2006
Version 3.507/20/2006
Statement of the UN Secretary General to the Security
Council
New York, 20 July 2006 - Secretary-General's briefing to the
Security Council on the situation in the Middle East
Mr. President,
The bloody conflict that has engulfed Lebanon and northern Israel,
following the crisis triggered by the Hezbollah attack across the
Blue Line on 12 July, continues to rage. Almost every day brings a
new escalation.
The Lebanese people, who had hoped that their country's dark days
were behind them, have been brutally dragged back into war.
Already, over 300 Lebanese have been killed and over 600 wounded.
And the casualties are mainly among the civilian population, about
one third of them children. Much of the infrastructure in Beirut
and around the country has been destroyed. Lebanon remains under an
Israeli military blockade, imposed by sea and air.
The Israeli people, who had hoped that Israel's withdrawal from
Lebanon ? certified by this Council six years ago ? would bring
security along their northern border, find themselves under
constant Hezbollah rocket attacks, which every day reach further
into Israeli territory. To date 28 Israelis have been killed and
over 200 wounded.
On the humanitarian front, conditions continue to deteriorate.
Israeli operations have made it impossible for UN agencies and
their humanitarian partners to reach almost any part of southern
Lebanon, even to assess the needs, let alone to deliver the actual
assistance needed.
Lack of access and in situ assessments make it difficult to
determine the exact figures of people in need. Based on preliminary
information provided by UNIFIL, the national Lebanese Red Cross,
and the Lebanese Government, UN agencies are currently working on
the basis of a combined total of up to 500,000 people affected,
comprising both internally displaced and those under siege. This
includes nationals from some 20 foreign countries. According to
extrapolations of the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, these figures
could likely double.
In addition, the Syrian authorities report that more than 140,000
people have now crossed into Syria, the majority being nationals of
Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries.
Mr. President,
Since the fighting began, I have been in constant touch with
regional and world leaders, both by telephone and during the G-8
Summit in St. Petersburg and my visit to Brussels. The G8 issued an
important statement which you have seen. But, as I have repeatedly
stressed, what is most urgently needed is an immediate cessation of
hostilities, for three vital reasons: first, to prevent further
loss of innocent life and the infliction of further suffering;
second, to allow full humanitarian access to those in need; and
third, to give diplomacy a chance to work out a practical package
of actions that would provide a lasting solution to the current
crisis.
I repeat: hostilities must stop. But while they continue, it is
imperative to establish safe corridors for humanitarian workers and
relief supplies to reach the civilian population.
The humanitarian task facing us is massive, and must be funded
urgently. As early as next week I hope to issue a UN Flash Appeal,
covering an initial response period of three-to-six months.
Because of the continued fighting, restrictions imposed by Israel
and the destruction of many roads, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon
has no freedom of movement and is unable even to provide
humanitarian escorts for displaced persons . Its personnel remain
confined to the Naqoura Headquarters and their positions in the
area of operations. One UNIFIL staff member and his wife have been
missing in Tyre since Monday, when the building they live in was
hit by an Israeli airstrike, and collapsed. We are gravely
concerned about their fate, since the approach road to Tyre is now
impassable and UNIFIL engineers have been unable to reach the
area.
UNIFIL now urgently needs a ?window? of time in which to bring in
stocks of food, water and fuel from Israel for its own personnel.
If UNIFIL is to remain operational, it will also need to distribute
fuel supplies to its positions within the next 24 hours.
We are not going to desert the people of Lebanon in their hour of
need. But we have to proceed with caution. As we come to their aid,
our Department of Safety and Security has been coordinating efforts
to ensure the safety of staff in the affected areas from all parts
of the UN System, and their dependents. Most non-essential staff
and dependents have been moved outside the country. Meanwhile we
are bringing in additional humanitarian experts.
Mr. President,
Let me be frank with the Council. The mission's assessment is that
there are serious obstacles to reaching a ceasefire, or even to
diminishing the violence quickly.
On 13 July I dispatched an urgent mission to the region, led by my
Special Adviser, Vijay Nambiar, accompanied by Terje Roed-Larsen
and Alvaro de Soto, whom you know well, to urge all parties to show
restraint and to explore ways of defusing the crisis. Mr. Nambiar
and his colleagues returned to New York last night, and they are
here now with me. I am very grateful to the governments of Spain
and the United Kingdom for enabling them to cover so much ground in
such a short time.
Hezbollah's provocative attack on July 12 was the trigger of this
crisis. It is clear that the Lebanese Government had no advance
knowledge of this attack. Whatever other agendas they may serve,
Hezbollah's actions, which it portrays as defending Palestinian and
Lebanese interests, in fact do neither. On the contrary, they hold
an entire nation hostage, set back prospects for negotiation of a
comprehensive Middle East peace.
I have already condemned Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, and
acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself under Article 51 of
the UN Charter. I do so again today. I also condemn Hezbollah's
reckless disregard for the wishes of the elected Government of
Lebanon, and for the interests of the Lebanese people and the wider
region.
Israel has confirmed that its operation in Lebanon has wider and
more far-reaching goals than the return of its captured soldiers,
and that its aim is to end the threat posed by Hezbollah. The
mission was informed that the operation is not yet approaching the
achievement of this objective.
Israel states that it has no quarrel with the government or the
people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precautions to
avoid harm to them. Yet a number of its actions have hurt and
killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel and caused great
damage to infrastructure. While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable,
and as I've said Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive
use of force is to be condemned.
But, while Israel has stated its military objectives to be to ?hit
Hezbollah's infrastructure and physical strength?, it has, in the
words of the Lebanese Prime Minister, ?torn the country to shreds?.
As Prime Minister Siniora also said yesterday, ?no government can
survive on the ruins of a nation?
The mission reports many of its interlocutors in the region as
noting that, whatever damage Israel's operations may be doing to
Hezbollah's military capabilities, they are doing little or nothing
to decrease popular support for Hezbollah in Lebanon or the region,
but are doing a great deal to weaken the Government of Lebanon.
In short, the very Government which Israel wants to extend its
control throughout the territory has itself become a hostage to the
crisis, is less able than ever to deploy its forces in the areas
necessary to control Hezbollah, and is appealing to the
international community for an immediate humanitarian
ceasefire.
Moreover, any analogy with Afghanistan under the Taliban is wholly
misleaeding. Mr. Siniora's government clearly espouses democratic
values. It deserves, and must receive, all possible support from
the international community.
Mr. President,
Despite our assessment that a full ceasefire remains difficult to
achieve at this time, I remain of the view that the international
community must make its position clear on the need for an immediate
cessation of hostilities, and a far greater and more credible
effort by Israel to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure
while the conditions for such a cessation are urgently
developed.
Both the deliberate targeting by Hezbollah of Israeli population
centres with hundreds of indiscriminate weapons and Israel's
disproportionate use of force and collective punishment of the
Lebanese people must stop. The abducted soldiers must be released
as soon as possible, and in any event the International Committee
of the Red Cross must be granted immediate access to them. The
Government of Israel must allow humanitarian agencies access to
civilians. And the democratically elected Government of Lebanon
must be urgently supported in its hour of crisis.
In addition to, and in parallel with, these urgent steps, we need
to continue diplomatic efforts to develop, in the shortest possible
time, a political framework which can be implemented as soon as
hostilities cease. Most people in the region rightly reject a
simple return to the status quo ante, since any truce based on such
a limited outcome could not be expected to last.
The mission has suggested elements to me which, in my opinion, must
form the political basis of any lasting ceasefire, and on which
they have conducted consultations with the leaders of Lebanon and
Israel. I and my advisers will continue to work on these elements,
in dialogue with the parties and regional and international
partners.
The elements include the following:
The captured Israeli soldiers must be transferred to the legitimate
Lebanese authorities, under the auspices of the ICRC, with a view
to their repatriation to Israel and a ceasefire.
On the Lebanese side of the Blue Line an expanded peacekeeping
force would help stabilize the situation, working with the Lebanese
government to help strengthen its army and deploy it fully
throughout the area. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government would fully
implement Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680, to establish
Lebanese sovereignty and control.
The Prime Minister of Lebanon would unequivocally confirm to the
Secretary-General and the Security Council that the Government of
Lebanon will respect the Blue Line in its entirety, until agreement
on Lebanon's final international boundaries is reached.
A donor framework would be established, with immediate effect, to
secure funding for an urgent package of aid, reconstruction and
development for Lebanon.
A mechanism would be established, composed of key regional and
international actors, to monitor and guarantee the implementation
of all aspects of the agreement.
An international conference should be organized, with broad
Lebanese and international participation, to develop precise
timelines for a speedy and full implementation of the Taef
agreement and further measures needed for Lebanon to comply with
its international obligations under Security Council Resolutions
1559 and 1680. The conference would also endorse a delineation of
Lebanon's international borders, including a final resolution on
all disputed areas, especially the Shebaa Farms. My letter to Prime
Minister Siniora of 5 June 2006 covers these issues.
The planning and implementation of these elements should, as far as
possible, be done in parallel. I repeat, in parallel. I should
stress that these ideas would obviously require further elaboration
and re- working, in close dialogue with all concerned. This Council
would need to consider incorporating the elements of such a package
in a resolution.
Meanwhile, the conditions for peacekeeping clearly do not exist.
The Security Council will need to decide what to do about UNIFIL,
whose mandate expires on 31 July. In my view, the continuation of
UNIFIL in its current configuration, and with its current mandate,
is not tenable. Should it be withdrawn? Should it be strengthened?
Should it be replaced with something else altogether? The context
is radically different from that of a few weeks ago.
Mr. President,
We also need a peace track for Gaza ? despite the different issues
involved ? as much as we do for Lebanon.
I am gravely concerned about Gaza. Palestinians there are suffering
deeply, with well over 100, many of them civilians, killed in the
last month alone. After the destruction by Israel of the Gaza power
plant, more than a million people are without electricity for most
of the day and night. Israelis in the south continue to endure
Qassam rocket attacks, though fortunately without casualties in the
past month.
I call for an immediate cessation of indiscriminate and
disproportionate violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
a reopening of closed crossing-points, without which Gaza will
continue to be sucked into a downward spiral of suffering and
chaos, and the region further inflamed.
In my delegation's meeting with President Abbas he underscored his
readiness to engage in a proper dialogue with the Government of
Israel. It is vital that the regional crisis not be allowed to
dampen the hopes that had been emerging on this score. President
Abbas? efforts to move the Palestinian side towards a national
unity government that addresses the Quartet?s principles must be
fully supported. Israel needs to refrain from unilateral acts that
prejudice final status issues and agree to negotiate in the peace
process.
If the violence is to end, and dialogue and engagement resume, the
international community must also play its part, and address the
Israeli-Palestinian issue boldly and creatively. This would also
help remove a pretext used by extremists throughout the region ?
including in Lebanon. As the G8 summit concluded, and as Arab
leaders stressed to the mission, the need to address a root cause
of the region's problems ? the absence of a comprehensive Middle
East peace ? is clear. We really need to focus on a comprehensive
Middle East peace.
Mr. President,
Our hearts and minds must be with the civilians in Lebanon, Israel
and Palestine who are enduring daily violence and who are looking
to the United Nations, as are many in the wider region, to find a
solution to the current crisis.
I recognize that there are differences of approach within this
Council. But today let us remember what unites us: our compassion
for the victims and for all who have lost loved ones ? to whom we
must all express our deepest condolences ? and our common desire to
bring about a stable, long-term peace between Israel and its
neighbours. That requires the international community, through this
Council, to speak with one voice in the coming days.
I invite the Council to consider the parallel implementation of the
package of concrete actions I have just presented. The support of
the international community in the political, security and
financial areas would be critical for the success of the entire
process.
It is my firm belief that only the simultaneous implementation of
the different elements of this package will allow for the
transformation of any cessation of hostilities into a durable
ceasefire. When this is achieved, the international community will
need to develop a framework for the final delineation of the
borders of Lebanon and a decisive revival of the Middle East peace
process.
I urge the Council to take firm action towards ensuring peace and
stability in the Middle East region as mandated by the Charter of
the United Nations.
Thank you, Mr. President.
07/20/2006
U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel:
U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military
A World Policy Institute Issue Brief
By Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms
Introduction
Much has been made in the U.S. media of the Syrian- and
Iranian-origin weaponry used by Hezbollah in the escalating
violence in Israel and Lebanon. There has been no parallel
discussion of the origin of Israel's weaponry, the vast bulk of
which is from the United States. "The billions of U.S. arms and aid
it provides every year gives the Bush administration substantial
leverage in pressing Israel for a cease fire in its attacks on
Lebanon," notes William D. Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World
Policy Institute in New York. "Without at least discussing U.S.
military support for Israel, it will be difficult-- if not
impossible-- for Americans to understand the options available to
our government in this crisis," argues Frida Berrigan, a Senior
Research Associate at the Institute.
During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel has
actually received more in U.S. military aid than it has in U.S.
arms deliveries. Over this time period Israel received $10.5
billion in Foreign Military Financing - the Pentagon's biggest
military aid program - and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries.
The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it
includes financing for major arms agreements for which the
equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of
these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to
Israel. "When it comes to getting arms from the U.S., Israel has
money in the bank," noted Hartung.
There are precedents for U.S. criticism of Israel's use of weapons
in human rights abuses, including "extrajudicial killings" and
"excessive use of force." In the State Department's human rights
reports for 2003, 2004, and 2005, incidents mentioned include
missile strikes on a refugee camp that killed six people and
wounded 19; the shooting and killing of four Palestinian children;
the demolition of Palestinian homes using tank shells, heavy
machine guns, and rockets (deemed an excessive use of force); the
use of rocket fire in targeted killing of leaders of Hamas; the
killing of 47 civilian bystanders in an operation aimed at
suspected terrorists in the occupied territories; and the use of
tank shells, machine-gun rounds and rockets fired from aircraft
against Palestinian towns and cities that were sources of
Palestinian shooting attacks. The human rights reports do not
indicate the origins of the weapons used in these cases of
excessive force, targeted assassinations, and failure to protect
civilians in retaliations against Palestinian attacks. However,
given that the many of Israel's tanks, ground attack planes, attack
helicopters, and air-to-ground missiles are of U.S. origin, it is
likely that U.S. weapons were used in at least some of these
attacks.
During the last major Israeli incursion into Lebanon, in 1981, the
Reagan administration cut off U.S. military aid and arms deliveries
for ten weeks while it investigated whether Israel was using
weapons for "defensive purposes," as required under U.S. law. At
the end of that period, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig
suggested that one could "argue until eternity" about whether a
given use of force was offensive or defensive, and the ban was
lifted. But at least the Reagan administration took some action,
which is more than can be said thus far about the administration of
George W. Bush.
This is not to suggest that Hezbollah is without its own sources of
weaponry. A New York Times article on Monday, July 17, 2006 cites
Israeli defense experts as it describes Hezbollah's possession of
at least a few hundred Fajr missiles, including a "Syrian produced
model" of the Fajr-3 which smashed into a railway maintenance
building in Haifa on Sunday, killing eight people and wounding as
many as 20. Hezbollah reportedly has its disposal a few hundred of
the Iranian origin Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 missiles, which have a range
of 30 to 45 miles and carry large explosive payloads. The same
article mentions the Iranian C-802 radar guided missile that sank
an Israeli civilian ship, and the shipment of Syrian rockets
intercepted and seized by Israeli military forces. One source has
asserted that Hezbollah has thousands of missiles, but does not
provide information on their designation or range.
On the other side of the ledger, the United States is the primary
source of Israel's far superior arsenal (see Appendix I for details
on U.S-supplied weaponry in the Israeli military arsenal). For more
than 30 years, Israel had been the largest recipient of U.S.
foreign assistance and since 1985 Jerusalem has received about $3
billion in military and economic aid each year from Washington.
U.S. aid accounts for more than 20% of Israel's total defense
budget (see Table II).
Israel's dependence on Washington for aid and arms means that the
Israeli military relies on spare parts and technical assistance
from the U.S. to maintain optimum performance in battle. This point
was underscored on July 14th, when the Pentagon's Defense Security
Cooperation Agency supported an Israeli request for JP-8 jet fuel
worth up to $210 million. Although this fuel will not be delivered
immediately, it will allow Israel to replace fuel used in bombing
runs in Lebanon. The Pentagon describes the deal as follows:
"The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will allow Israel to
maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory. The
jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep
peace and security in the region. Israel will have no difficulty
absorbing this additional fuel into its armed forces."
U.S. Weapons in Israel's Current Military Arsenal
The bulk of Israel's current arsenal is composed of equipment
supplied under U.S. military aid programs. For example, Israel has
226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets, 89 F-15 combat
aircraft, over 700 M-60 tanks, over 6,000 armored personnel
carriers, and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters,
utility and training aircraft, bombs, and missiles of all kinds -
air-to-air, air-to-ground, surface-to-air, and air-to surface. For
a fuller accounting of U.S. weapons in the Israeli arsenal, see
Appendix I.
Weapons Sales and Grants
Israel is one of the United States' largest arms importers. Between
1996 and 2005 (the last year for which full data is available),
Israel took delivery of $10.19 billion in U.S. weaponry and
military equipment, including more than $8.58 billion through the
Foreign Military Sales program, and another $1.61 billion in Direct
Commercial Sales (see Table I for more recent weapons sales
data).
In 2005 alone, documents from the Departments of Defense and State
show that Israel received $2.76 billion in weaponry and military
hardware from the United States, and another $629 million in
defense services like maintenance and training. This figure
includes transfers of $188 million in miscellaneous missile spare
parts, $7.1 million in tank components, $155 million in ship
components, $1.3 million in explosives and $720,000 anti-personnel
riot control chemicals.
Recent military sales to Israel include propulsion systems for
"fast patrol boats" worth more than $15 million from MTU Detroit
Diesel; an $8 million contract to Lockheed Martin for high tech
infrared "Navigation and Targeting" capabilities for Israeli jets;
and a $145 million deal with Oshkosh Truck Corp to build more than
900 armor kits for Israel's Medium Tactical Vehicles.
TABLE I: U.S. WEAPONS SALES DELIVERIES TO ISRAEL
YEAR FMS DCS TOTAL
2001 $766,026,000 $4,019,000 $770,045,000
2002 $629,426,000 $1,427,000 $630,853,000
2003 $845,952,000 $16,455,000 $862,407,000
2004 $878,189,000 $418,883,000 $1,297,072,000
2005 $1,652,582,000 $1,110,223,000 $2,762,805,000
TOTAL $4,772,175,000 $1,551,007,000 $6,323,182,000
Source: "Facts Book: Department of Defense, Security Assistance
Agency," September 30, 2005. Key: FMS, Foreign Military Sales; DCS,
Direct Commercial Sales. The Facts Books does not make future
projections and thus data for 2006 and 2007 is not yet
available.
U.S. Military Aid to Israel
As mentioned above, despite its relatively small size, Israel is
the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance. Over the
past decade, the United States has transferred more than $17
billion in military aid to this country of just over 6 million
people. In 2005, Israel received $2.25 billion in Foreign Military
Financing, and President George W. Bush's budget request for 2007
includes an additional $2.24 billion in FMF aid for Israel.
The United States sees its military aid as going to "help foster
stability in a historically volatile region," and to support
Israel's "multiyear defense modernization plan." In its 2007
request for military aid submitted to Congress, the Department of
Defense also mentioned helping its ally "meet cash flow
requirements" to procure F-16 fighter planes, Apache Longbow Attack
helicopters, field vehicles and advanced armaments.
Foreign Military Financing represents a significant chunk of the
Israeli defense budget, most of which is spent in the United States
on U.S. weapons. In addition to this "special relationship," the
Congressional Research Service report on U.S. Foreign Assistance to
Israel enumerates a number of other special concessions from the
United States around this aid.
Unlike other countries, Israel receives its Economic Support Funds
in one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four
quarterly installments. This forces the U.S. to pay more in
interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments--
between $50 million and $60 million per year according to Agency
for International Development officials.
While other countries primarily deal with the Department of Defense
when arranging to purchase military hardware from U.S. companies,
Israel deals directly with U.S. companies for the vast majority of
its military purchases in the United States. Other countries have a
$100,000 minimum purchase amount per contract, but Israel is
allowed to purchase military items for less than $100,000.
Finally, the United States underwrites Israel's research and
development of weapons-and has contributed billions of dollars to
Israeli systems like the Merkava tank and the Lavi ground-attack
aircraft.
In November 2003, the first of a new batch of 102 F-16s for Israel
rolled off the production line in Texas. The $45 million per copy
F-16I Sufa is part of a $4.5 billion deal between manufacturer
Lockheed Martin and Jerusalem. The Sufa F-16 fighter planes are
co-manufactured with Israel. The Israeli defense company Lahav is
providing customized avionics.
TABLE II: MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL
YEAR FMF ESF
SUPPLEMENTALS NADR-ATA TOTAL
2001 $1,975,644,000 $838,000,000 --
-- $2,813,644,000
2002 $2,040,000,000 $720,000,000 --
$28,000,000 $2,788,000,000
2003 $2,086,350,000 $596,100,000 $1,000,000,000 --
$3,682,450,000
2004 $2,147,256,000 $477,168,000 --
-- $2,624,424,000
2005 $2,202,240,000 $357,120,000 $50,000,000 $210,000
$2,609,570,000
2006 (estimated) $2,257,200,000 $273,600,000 --
$526,000 $2,531,326,000
2007 (requested) $2,340,000,000 $120,000,000 --
$320,000 $2,460,320,000
TOTALS
2001-2007
$15,048,690,000 $3,381,988,000 $1,050,000,000 $29,056,000
$19,509,734,000
Source: "Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign
Operations," Fiscal Years 2001-2007.
Key: FMF, Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid); ESF,
Economic Support Fund (open-ended monetary assistance that can be
used to offset military spending and arms purchases; Supplementals
are special one-time grants meant as a complement to already
allocated aid; NADR-ATA, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining
& Related Programs
U.S. Aid Provides U.S. Leverage Over Israel
Given the billions of dollars of aid it provides to Israel every
year and the central role of U.S.-supplied weaponry in the Israeli
arsenal, the United States has considerable leverage that it could
use to promote a cease fire in the current conflict between Israel
and Hezbollah before more Israeli and Lebanese civilians are killed
and displaced. President Bush needs to go beyond vague calls for
"restraint" to demands for a cease fire between Israel and
Hezbollah, bringing in other key actors in the region, including
Iran and Syria.
Frida Berrigan
Senior Research Associate
World Policy Institute
66 Fifth Ave., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
ph 212.229.5808 x4254
fax 212.229.5579
The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in
public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint
in the international arms trade.
07/20/2006
PRESS RELEASE: 20 July 2006 (Judith Malina - The Living Theatre,
New York)
By Christian Bartolf
Judith Malina and Hanon Reznikov from The Living Theatre, New York
(USA) signed the international "Manifesto against conscription and
the military system" on 19 and 20 June 2006 a fortnight after a
memorable performance at the Academy of Arts in Berlin. "Founded in
1947 as an imaginative alternative to the commercial theater by
Judith Malina, the German-born student of Erwin Piscator, and
Julian Beck, an abstract expressionist painter of the New York
School, The Living Theatre has staged nearly a hundred productions
performed in eight languages in 28 countries on five continents - a
unique body of work that has influenced theater the world over.
During the 1950's and early 1960's in New York,
The Living Theatre pioneered the unconventional staging of poetic
drama - the plays of American writers like Gertrude Stein, William
Carlos Williams, Paul Goodman, Kenneth Rexroth and John Ashbery, as
well as European writers rarely produced in America, including
Cocteau, Lorca, Brecht and Pirandello. Best remembered among these
productions, which marked the start of the Off-Broadway movement,
were /Doctor Faustus Lights the Lights, Tonight We Improvise, Many
Loves, The Connection /and / The Brig. /The difficulty of operating
a unique, experimental enterprise within a cultural establishment
ill-equipped to accept it led to the closing by the authorities of
all The Living Theatre's New York venues: the Cherry Lane Theater
(closed by the Fire Department in 1953), The Living Theatre Studio
on Broadway at 100th Street (closed by the Buildings Department in
1956), The Living Theatre on 14th Street (closed by the I.R.S. in
1963) and The Living Theatre on Third Street (closed by the
Buildings Department in 1993).
In the mid-1960's, the company began a new life as a nomadic
touring ensemble. In Europe, they evolved into a collective, living
and working together toward the creation of a new form of
nonfictional acting based on the actor's political and physical
commitment to using the theater as a medium for furthering social
change. The landmark achievements of this period include /Mysteries
and Smaller Pieces, Antigone, Frankenstein /and / Paradise Now. /In
the 1970's, The Living Theatre began to create /The Legacy of
Cain/, a cycle of plays for non-traditional venues. From the
prisons of Brazil to the gates of the Pittsburgh steel mills, and
from the slums of Palermo to the schools of New York City, the
company offered these plays, which include /Six Public Acts, The
Money Tower, Seven Meditations on Political Sado-Masochism, Turning
the Earth /and the /Strike Support Oratorium /free of charge to the
broadest of all possible audiences. The 1980's saw the group return
to the theater, where they developed new participatory techniques
that enable the audience to first rehearse with the company and
then join them on stage as fellow performers. These plays include /
Prometheus at the Winter Palace, The Yellow Methuselah /and / The
Archaeology of Sleep. /Following the death of Julian Beck in 1985,
cofounder Judith Malina and the company's new director, veteran
Hanon Reznikov, who first encountered The Living Theatre while a
student at Yale in 1968, opened a new performing space in
Manhattan's Lower East Side, producing a steady stream of
innovative works including /The Tablets, I and I, The Body of God,
Humanity, Rules of Civility, Waste, Echoes of Justice, /and /The
Zero Method. /After the closing of the Third Street space in 1993,
the company went on to create / Anarchia, Utopia /and /Capital
Changes /in other New York City venues. In 1999, with funds from
the European Union, they renovated a 1650 Palazzo Spinola in
Rocchetta Ligure, Italy and reopened it as the Centro Living
Europa, a residence and working space for the company's European
programs. There they created /Resistenza/, a dramatization of the
local inhabitants' historical resistance to the German occupation
of 1943-45. In recent years, the company has also been performing
/Resist Now!/, a play for anti-globalization demonstrations both in
Europe and the U.S. A month-long collaboration with local theater
artists in Lebanon in 2001 resulted in the creation of a
site-specific play about the abuse of political detainees in the
notorious former prison at Khiam." (- History of The Living
Theatre, see their website:
http://www.livingtheatre.org -) Their recent performances /Not In
My Name!/ and /Love and Politics/ are directed against the death
penalty and military recruitment in the USA concluding with a
sing-in of "Stop the War!" to the tune of "The Star Spangled
Banner".
 |
 |