Prior to 2003, Cities for Peace, a coalition of local elected officials and concerned community members, worked to get City Councils and other civic bodies to pass resolutions against a US led war on Iraq. Although the group focuses on the anti-war effort, this tactic has also been used to show local opposition to a variety of federal actions, such as investment in apartheid and the curtailment of civil liberties under the Patriot Act (2001).
Creating a Grassroots Movement for Community Resolutions
The Cities for Peace Campaign formed when the Institute for Policy Studies saw several local governments passing resolutions and decided to develop a set of online “how-to” guidelines for creating and passing similar resolutions. The majority of individuals who access these online resources are members of locally-focused, grassroots groups. However, government officials have also used the guidelines. Information about Cities for Peace has spread largely through word-of-mouth, but has received an amazing response. By the end of February 2003, 113 cities and counties had passed resolutions and over 90 new campaigns were underway.
The website provided organizers with a “step-by-step guide to getting a resolution passed in your city” including: types of local organizations that can most likely be gathered to support a resolution and advises organizers on how to survey the opinions of their City Council members and gain Council members as allies for their cause; and a sample petition that can be used to gather public signatures, as well as advise on how to set up a public education event and reach out to the media. A large function of the website was to facilitate conversation between communities and organizations within states. However, individuals can also use the site to find models of resolutions that have been passed in cities of comparable size and demographics. The resolutions are not standard, but almost all of them stipulated that a copy would be sent to Congressional leaders and President Bush.
Building Momentum Through Collective Action and Media Advocacy
As the umbrella group, Cities for Peace used the resolutions together, so they became “more than the sum of the parts.” They launched a media campaign leading to articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times. They also provided organizers with sample op-ed pieces and press releases to help publicize the effort. On February 13, Council Members from 30 of the cities that had passed resolutions gathered in Washington DC to advocate continued UN weapons inspection as an alternative to war. Delegates held a news briefing, symbolically delivered their resolutions to the White House, and met with members of Congress who were in favor of the war. The following day they participated in a large anti-war rally in New York.
In many cases, resolutions had been easy to pass. Once they reach the point where they would be voted on, they often passed by a wide margin. The main difficulty encountered by local groups was convincing the Council that this was a local issue. For organizers who encountered problems getting resolutions introduced or passed in their city, they shifted to having individual Council Members and city government officials circulate letters and make public statements against the war. In addition, resolutions were passed by other civic bodies such as universities and labor unions.
The Cities for Peace campaign demonstrates the power of grassroots organizing and local government action in influencing national policy. By equipping community members with the tools to advocate for their beliefs, this tactic fosters civic engagement and empowers individuals to voice their opposition to federal actions. The approach can be adapted to various contexts, such as addressing climate change, advocating for civil rights, or challenging social injustices. The campaign’s success hinged on community collaboration, media engagement, and presenting local issues as part of a broader national dialogue. However, it also highlights potential challenges, including the need for local buy-in and framing issues in a way that resonates with community values.
New Tactics in Human Rights does not advocate for or endorse specific tactics, policies or issues.