Ending the War in Iraq, Building a Broad Movement for Peace and Justice, And Our Experience with A.N.S.W.E.R.

From the Steering Committee, United for Peace and Justice
December 12, 2005

United for Peace and Justice aims to build the broadest, most diverse movement for an immediate and complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We see this as our immediate priority in the long-term effort to build a durable peace and justice movement that connects domestic and international issues. We are committed to working in a way that makes it possible for the widest array of people to come together around common aims, including communities of color, military families, Iraq war veterans and other veterans, the labor movement, youth, religious community, the women’s and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender movements, professional organizations and community groups.

As our coalition moves forward, we try to evaluate our experiences in order to strengthen our efforts and overcome our shortcomings. In recent months, a difficult and controversial aspect of our work has been our engagement with International A.N.S.W.E.R in co-sponsoring the September 24, 2005 Washington, D.C. Rally and March. Following this experience, and after thorough discussion, the national steering committee of United for Peace and Justice has decided not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level. Here we want to share with all UFPJ member groups our summary of this experience and the decisions we have made as a result.

In spring 2005, based on previous experiences, UFPJ did not believe it would be productive to make coordination with ANSWER a centerpiece of our September 24 efforts. (See memo dated May 23rd – click here: www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php). We had a particular vision for this specific action:

(1) its central demands would hone in on ending the war in Iraq, thus sending a focused message to the U.S. public and providing an entryway into the antiwar movement for the expanding number of people prepared to turn out for a protest demonstration; and
(2) the connections between the Iraq war and Washington’s overall empire building, the U.S. support of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, racism, repression and injustice at home would be articulated in accessible and creative ways, not only via rally speakers, but also at an interactive two day peace and justice festival, and throughout a 12 hour concert.

We did not believe ANSWER shared this perspective on the September 24 activities. Therefore we decided that working with them would hinder rather than help in maximizing the breadth and impact of such a demonstration at an urgent political moment.

As September 24 came closer and some circumstances changed, we changed our perspective. Regarding the weekend in general, the spotlight Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath put on racism and class inequities led us to highlight the demand for Funding Full and Just Recovery in the Gulf Coast. Regarding our relations with ANSWER, our concerns grew about the potential confusion of having two totally separate demonstrations in the same city on the same day. We seriously considered the thoughtful concerns expressed by some anti-war groups and activists that an agreement for a joint UFPJ-ANSWER action needed to be worked out. As a result, after much reflection and without unanimity among us, we reversed our earlier decision. With the help of mediation by U.S. Labor Against the War, we worked out an agreement with ANSWER for joint sponsorship of the September 24 Rally and March (but not other weekend activities). (See the text of the agreement, click here: www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php).

There were two positive results of this agreement. First, we avoided the problem of two completely separate demonstrations in Washington, DC on September 24. Second, the rancorous public dispute over the whos, hows and whys of September 24 was largely ended for the important period immediately preceding the action.

But there were many negative results as well.

First, ANSWER violated the terms of our agreement in ways that substantially and negatively impacted September 24’s message and impact:

(1) ANSWER did not honor the agreed-upon time limits for its sections of the pre-march Rally, going more than an hour over in one section. The time was to be evenly divided in 30 minutes segments alternating between the two coalitions. Besides the impact in terms of disrespect to other speakers and the attendees in Washington, DC, this meant that the C-SPAN broadcast of the rally presented a one-sided picture of the antiwar movement to the U.S. public. In the extended ANSWER section broadcast on C-SPAN, there was in fact very little focus on, or explanation of, the central demand motivating hundreds of thousands of people to attend the demonstration: U.S. Out of Iraq Now.

(2) ANSWER delayed the start of the March for an hour past the agreed upon time. We learned that morning that while our agreement with ANSWER was to begin the march at 12:30, the permit ANSWER had negotiated with the police had the march starting at 1:30. This led to confusion, which in turn prevented the agreed-upon lead contingent carrying the agreed-upon lead banner (“End the War in Iraq, Bring the Troops Home Now, Justice for Hurricane Victims”) from actually leading the March. This diluted the March’s message – especially in terms of media images of the March’s front rank. It also jeopardized relationships between UFPJ and the representatives of several organizations whom we asked be part of the lead contingent of the March. An antiwar movement still not as strong as we need to be when compared to the tasks before us, in which developing relationships of mutual trust and accountability is of vital importance, can ill afford such short-sighted and narrow-minded practice.

(3) ANSWER did not turn out many volunteers to provide for fundraising, security and media operations for the March and Rally. UFPJ was also short of volunteers, but the much smaller numbers from ANSWER meant that many of the practical burdens of attending to the needs of the crowd fell on UFPJ, while ANSWER concentrated its attention on extending the time their speakers were on the stage.

In our view, it was because we had insisted (against ANSWER’s objections) that the terms of our agreement be made public; and through the costly expenditure of time and energy to deal with one issue after another in the weeks just before September 24, that additional problems were avoided. However, the interactions required to accomplish this were tremendously difficult and stressful, taking a major human toll on the UFPJ representatives participating in meetings with ANSWER. UFPJ has made our share of mistakes and no doubt some of us may have made intemperate and inappropriate remarks in the heat of political difficulty. We also see that while our agreement with ANSWER did not require us to do so, the fact that we did not inform them about the plans to include speakers during the late afternoon/evening concert might have contributed to the tension. But the souring of the political atmosphere is largely due to ANSWER, which, in our experience, consistently substitutes labels (“racist”, “anti-unity”) and mischaracterization of others’ views for substantive political debate or problem solving – both in written polemics and direct face-to-face interactions.

Beyond all this, the priority given to negotiating and then trying to carry out an agreement with ANSWER hurt rather than helped galvanize the participation of many other groups and individuals in the September 24 activities. In part this is simply a question of where time and resources were directed. But it also stems from the bridges ANSWER has burned over the years with other broader forces in the progressive movement. Many longtime antiwar and social movement activists – and many groups only recently embracing mass action against the war - have had the same kind of negative experiences with ANSWER that we did in the run-up to, and on September 24. Some people, and some UFPJ member groups, believe this stems from ANSWER’s political and strategic perspectives. Others attribute the problems to what is often called style of work, or to issues about democracy, decision making and control. Whatever the case on this level, co-sponsorship with ANSWER on September 24 was welcomed by some in the antiwar movement but limited or prevented completely the participation of others.

This is not surprising: “unity in the movement” doesn’t happen in the abstract. Especially when up-close coordination is involved, unity takes place between specifics groups and individuals, and choices to work in close cooperation with certain groups with certain approaches simultaneously means choosing not to work in the same fashion with other groups. Of course we all dream of a situation where everyone gets together as one cooperative movement family. But we still must deal with politics as they are, not as we wish them to be. Sometimes it is necessary for groups with extremely bitter relations to cooperate for a common aim. But there are many circumstances when effective movement building and the long-range process of developing unity is better served by different groups pursuing different courses, until conditions change or the groups themselves evolve and transform.

In terms of UFPJ’s relationship with ANSWER, our national steering committee has concluded that the latter path is best for the foreseeable future. We did not have consensus. But by a more than two thirds supermajority we voted on December 4 not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level. We simultaneously recognized that other settings and situations may be different. We make no recommendations or mandates on this issue to UFPJ member groups in local or constituency-based areas, who will continue to decide whether and/or how much to coordinate efforts with ANSWER based on their own experiences, conditions and judgments.

The tasks in front of the anti-Iraq war movement and all of us who are struggling for peace and justice are immense. Yet this is a moment of great opportunity, as popular anger at Bush’s wars against people abroad and at home grows, and as an expanding number of organizations – many with massive constituencies among poor, working and oppressed peoples – are willing to consider taking up aggressive protest mobilizations. United for Peace and Justice will redouble our efforts to push forward the antiwar movement and to bring the broadest and most diverse array of people and groups into the struggle for peace and justice.

-----------------


A.N.S.W.E.R. Responds to UFPJ: Our Position on Unity in the AntiWar Movement
Friday, December 16, 2005

From A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Steering Committee



Ten weeks after the September 24 demonstration brought more than 300,000 people to Washington DC in a massive show of strength by a united antiwar movement, the leadership of the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) has publicly announced its unilateral intention to effect a long-term split in the antiwar movement. This is the second time in seven months that UFPJ has publicly proclaimed its intention to split the movement, coupled with a false and ugly attack on the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. In May 2005, they announced that they would hold a second and separate demonstration in Washington DC on September 24 rather than work in a united front with A.N.S.W.E.R.. Fortunately, the progressive movement overcame that splitting effort, which would have seriously weakened the movement at a critical moment.

It is important to understand the political and organizational motivation behind UFPJ's decision to split the antiwar movement now, as we are becoming increasingly successful. Public opinion has shifted dramatically against the war. More than 100,000 Iraqis have died, thousands upon thousands of U.S. soldiers have either been killed or horribly wounded, and nearly one half trillion dollars has been appropriated for this criminal endeavor. Why then, under these circumstances, would UFPJ's leadership issue a public declaration that it is determined to split the movement? The justifications cited in their December 12 split declaration are embarrassingly petty and astonishingly trivial for a U.S.-based antiwar movement, especially given the gravity of the war itself and the monumental human suffering in the Middle East. They are also an unfortunate collection of half-truths and outright distortions of facts. UFPJ's justification for this split serves really to obfuscate rather than clarify the real motivations of UFPJ's shamefully sectarian decision.

This response comes in three parts. First we present our view of the political motives behind these continuous attacks, second is A.N.S.W.E.R.'s perspective on unity and then we follow with a factual rebuttal of the petty and inaccurate charges put forth by UFPJ.

BACKGROUND TO UFPJ'S DECISION

The UFPJ leadership, from its inception, has been on a relentless path of splitting the movement. In spite of this, there have been three mass united front protests sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R. and UFPJ: (1) The October 25, 2003 march of 100,000 in Washington; (2) The March 20, 2004 march of 100,000 in New York City and; (3) The September 24 demonstration of more than 300,000 in Washington DC. In each instance the united front was proposed by A.N.S.W.E.R., initially rejected by UFPJ's leadership and then accepted later by UFPJ's leadership either because of pressure from the movement or because UFPJ's leadership recognized the demonstration would be massive with or without their participation. UFPJ has never once proposed a united front with A.N.S.W.E.R.. A.N.S.W.E.R. has also fully mobilized and supported the major demonstrations that UFPJ has called in New York, organizing A.N.S.W.E.R. supporters and people around the country to attend in large numbers.

Seven months ago, UFPJ's leadership announced a similar decision to split the movement. On May 11, A.N.S.W.E.R. issued the call for a September 24 antiwar march on Washington and on the same day, invited UFPJ to form a united front and hold a join action. On May 23, 2005, in response to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s invitation, UFPJ sent out a sudden and public letter announcing that they were canceling their planned demonstration in New York City and were calling for a separate demonstration on September 24 in Washington DC, across the street from the White House's Ellipse, where A.N.S.W.E.R. called for protest. It was only under significant pressure from the Arab-American and Muslim community, and people throughout the antiwar movement -- including key sectors in labor - that UFPJ's sectarian split scenario was defeated and a hugely successful joint demonstration took place. We encourage all to review the joint position of the National Council of Arab Americans (NCA) and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation (MAS):
www.arab-american.net/Contact/About_Us___/Statements/MAS_NCA/body_mas_nca.html

The NCA and MAS were partners with A.N.S.W.E.R. and other prominent organizations in the September 24 National Coalition, which was the partner with UFPJ for that day.

The foundational political issue in the controversy between the two coalitions was over the inclusion of Palestine, the centrality of the Arab-American and Muslim community in the leadership of the movement and the occupation of Haiti. At its essence, the issue was one of an anti-imperialist perspective. Another underlying and related issue, usually in the background but very vital to strategic perspective, is UFPJ's increasing orientation toward and flirtation with the Democratic Party. In the core of UFPJ's leadership are political parties and organizations that worked tirelessly for John Kerry and the election of Democrats. Their vision of "left-center unity" means to support the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party leadership and almost all of the politicians in Congress cannot possibly embrace an antiwar movement that openly supports the Palestinian people and their right to return to their homeland. The Democratic and Republican party leadership are both fervently committed to Israel and its ongoing suppression of the Palestinians. According to this orientation, working with A.N.S.W.E.R. means it will be impossible to get the Democratic Party or members of Congress "on board."

For our part, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition considers it harmful to try to tailor the message of the progressive movement to please the long-awaited but fictional support from the politicians. During the Vietnam war, Congress only cut funding for the war in 1974 - a year after the last U.S. soldiers left Vietnam. The leadership of the Democratic Party and the Republic Party are unflinching supporters of the war machine and they share the strategic designs for U.S. global domination through the agencies of the Pentagon, IMF, World Bank and other auxiliary instruments like the WTO, the FTAA, and NAFTA.

During the first Iraq war of 1990-1991, some of the same leadership forces now in UFPJ chose to create a second antiwar coalition and insisted on marching under the banner "Economic Sanctions Not War" while some of those who are today in the leadership of A.N.S.W.E.R. argued that economic sanctions were war - and a weapon of mass destruction at that. We contended that economic sanctions against Iraq would result in a form of genocide against the Iraqi people and that the only correct position for the U.S. antiwar movement was to demand, "no war against Iraq." Many of the current UFPJ leaders argued then that if the movement refused to call for economic sanctions, it would be smeared as an objective apologist for Saddam Hussein's government. Likewise, a large contingent of representatives in Congress voted in favor of economic sanctions rather than war. Ultimately, Congress voted for war and sanctions that deprived people of clean drinking water, food, and access to medicine. The economic sanctions ultimately took the lives of more than one million Iraqis, most of them children under the age of five, according to the UN's own statistics. Much later, witnessing the destructiveness of the sanctions they had publicly advocated, these same organizations and leaders now with UFPJ switched, and began to take a position against sanctions.

The question for the antiwar movement is this: are we building a movement that comprehensively challenges imperialism or are we opposed only to certain tactics employed by imperialism such as overt, unilateral military invasion? And, are people and communities most affected by imperial wars mere objects for this movement, or are they real partners in it? What is the message we are bringing to the people of the United States? This is critical in our opinion because we believe that the people alone are the source of change and transformation. The politicians are in the back pocket of Corporate America and the Military-Industrial Complex. Building genuine solidarity with Iraqi, Palestinian and Arab people - the central targets of the current war for Empire - is not simply an exercise for the already radicalized community. It is rather a life and death need of the movement to win the population away from the xenophobia, national chauvinism and racism that is promoted by the government. These are the central methods they employ to rally support for their war for empire—or as it's commonly known, "the war on terrorism."

Inside the UFPJ leadership and in its publications there is great excitement about John Murtha's disaffection with the war. We too welcome it as a sign that there is a small but increasing division in the camp of the war makers. Murtha is part of the camp that believes the armed insurgency cannot be militarily conquered. The split, however, is over tactics and not over the strategic goal of U.S. domination over the Middle East and its peoples.

UFPJ's leadership sent out a sample letter to the antiwar movement that calls on people to write a letter to Congress that reads: "Instead of scorn, Murtha deserves praise and support for his courageous leadership. Isn't that what we want from our elected officials?" Remember this for a man who stated "I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing" at his press conference announcing his call for "redeployment" from Iraq. Two hundred thousand Guatemalans, 40,000 Nicaraguans and 70,000 Salvadorans died during Reagan's "Central America thing."

So what is Murtha actually proposing as he breaks ranks with Bush over the war that he previously supported? Murtha wants to "redeploy U.S. troops," "create a quick reaction force in the region," and "an over- the- horizon presence of Marines."(*) Murtha has not adopted an antiwar position. He wants to redeploy militarily to strengthen the hand of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East because the current path is not working. Fewer U.S. soldiers will be in harm's way, which of course is a welcome development, but Murtha and the other disaffected elements in the Pentagon's high command want to continue to strategically station air power and the Marines for rapid strikes in the Arab world. If the slogan "Bring the Troops Home" ends up meaning redeployment and more surgical bombing and strikes against the people of the Middle East it loses its antiwar meaning entirely. Murtha's redeployment call is on par with Ariel Sharon's removal of troops and settlers from Gaza. It is fundamentally a military action to strengthen the military and political position of the occupiers, in response to the pressures of the resistance.

Why is it that UFPJ's leadership can build a gushing "united front" with imperialist politicians but not the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has organized hundreds of thousands of people to promote genuine peace and self-determination for all peoples in the Arab world and the Middle East. We believe that the antiwar movement should take advantage of splits within the camp of the war makers and also solicit the support of progressive elected officials to support the program of the antiwar movement, but it would be destructive if the progressive forces delete its own anti-imperialist or anti-racist politics so that the movement becomes "acceptable" to imperialist decision-makers.

A.N.S.W.E.R.'S PERPECTIVE ON THE STRUGGLE FOR UNITY

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition regards the united front that was formed at its initiative to have been remarkably successful. It was a powerful showing of a growing movement. The success of the day is not measured by the inconvenience or unpleasantness of having to work with those who do not share the same political views or particularities of personality. The success of the day is based on the ability to do what is necessary to bring together the largest and most inclusive showing possible of antiwar sentiment on a principled basis.

There are many significant, and many less than significant, controversies in the movement. That is natural and inevitable. There are also weaknesses and mistakes. Open discussion, evaluation and criticism (even sharp criticism) are necessary to overcome our weaknesses and learn from our mistakes. A.N.S.W.E.R., like all other forces, has its share of shortcomings in addition to its strengths and its accomplishments.

We are also aware that the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition is routinely singled out for attack from right-wingers in the media, as well as an insignificant and small coterie of liberal literati who sit comfortably on the sidelines slinging mud and defaming A.N.S.W.E.R. as hundreds and thousands of real activists go out every day passing out leaflets, postering, meeting with new people and conducting all the other unseen tasks that are necessary for the functioning of a truly mass movement. Those with access to media outlets and significant funds raise this same chorus of inconsolable attack with every major action that A.N.S.W.E.R. organizes or helps organize. It is a predictable pattern. If we organize an event of 100,000 or more the chorus starts to sing simultaneously, with great excitement, from exactly the same worn out hymnal. Conservative and liberal self-appointed elites use the same old, tired, factually-inaccurate red-baiting caricatures to slander the movement we have all been working day and night to build during the past four years. We do not normally respond to those routine attacks because it is a diversion from building the real movement. Besides, it is a cottage industry that feeds off itself.

It is a source of embarrassment for the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition that the antiwar movement in the most privileged country, led by a government whose actions have created so much suffering and consequent anger from people around the world, is unable to come together to shoulder the responsibility placed on us. Splitting the peace movement on an unprincipled and sectarian basis in the U.S. is an act that will enter history shrouded with the indignation of the victims of empire and war.

Abrogating our responsibility to unity is an option the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition will not take. We will never abandon those struggling against the bombs and jet fighters made here in the United States.

It is unfortunate that we have had to divert energies to respond to this effort to split the movement, but we are also confident that the many hundreds of thousands of antiwar activists in the country will choose the path of unity—to stand together regardless of whether a small leadership grouping directs people to be divided. There will be Spring demonstrations against war and racism including the March 18-20 days of action (www.pephost.org/march18-20). We still believe that unity is the best way to proceed and that the most important work is to bring as many forces as possible together based on the inclusion, not exclusion, of targeted communities.

In the weeks and months ahead, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, working with allies in oppressed and targeted communities, with young people in the high schools and universities and in the workplace, and with all those who are fighting for peace and justice, will seek to build the broadest, most militant mass movement to stop the war in Iraq and the war against working class communities at home. Different groups may have different slogans on their banners, but they should try to overcome the forces of division so as to march shoulder to shoulder against the real enemy.

RESPONDING TO FALSE ALLEGATIONS

For the record, we must also tell the truth in answer to the shameful distortions presented by UFPJ about what actually happened before and during September 24. These issues, as outlined in UFPJ's public letter of December 12, are petty on their face, but the presentation is also disingenuous and false. It is noteworthy that the December 12 letter about the "problems" on September 24 never mentions that more than 300,000 people came together, surrounded the White House in a show of united protest, and confronted the war makers with the largest explicitly antiwar protest since the start of the criminal imperialist adventure. People from all communities marched together, rather than be separated, in a magnificent demonstration of human solidarity and opposition to the war in Iraq. One would think from the UFPJ letter that September 24 was a dismal event, and that the question of organizational problems was most important for the movement. Given the massive success of the antiwar movement, we are embarrassed to even have to address these false and petty issues.

Since the UFPJ's allegations consist of half- truths and distortions, we are obliged to respond with the facts. There are three main points:

1) UFPJ claims that A.N.S.W.E.R. went over its time limit at the joint rally. In violation of the assurances given at negotiations prior to the signing of a united front agreement for one single, joint rally at the White House/Ellipse, UFPJ turned the Washington Monument musical concert into a "second rally." In the weeks leading up to September 24, UFPJ sought to divert attention from the joint rally to the second rally, announcing speakers at the second rally and making virtually no mention of the joint rally.

UFPJ had the stage first at the joint rally. They went over their time. They advised A.N.S.W.E.R. to take an equal time. UFPJ then retook the stage and began telling the crowd to march, even though A.N.S.W.E.R. still had its second segment left. UFPJ announced they were moving their speakers to a second rally, urged people to march, and directed people out of the joint rally area at the White House draining it for the remainder of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s segment. Because of the number of people still streaming towards the White House's Ellipse as busses were still arriving, this directive to march caused a logjam of people coming towards the rally and leaving the rally, bringing 15th St to a standstill.

2) UFPJ claims that A.N.S.W.E.R. delayed the start of the march and thereby disrupted the front of the march and prevented the lead contingent and agreed-upon banner. The story about the front of the march is also a fabrication. There was an agreement that both groups would designate people to be at the front. UFPJ had a certain number of "VIPs" that they wanted on the front banner. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s speakers included George Galloway, Jessica Lange, Delores Huerta, Ralph Nader, Michael Berg, Michel Shehadeh, Lynne Stewart, Mahdi Bray, Mounzer Sleiman, Ramsey Clark and many others.

There were so many people, perhaps over 100,000 people who were still coming towards the rally site from the east and north (the whole western side of the Ellipse was frozen by the Secret Service because of the IMF/WB meetings) so that the front of the march, as it attempted to gather at 15th and Constitution was basically stuck in a human gridlock. This situation was worsened by UFPJ's entreaties from the stage to march when the crowd was still streaming in. The "front" of the march could not march northward against the river of protestors that was still flowing in the opposite direction. 15th street became completely full and did not move. At some point the crowd took off.

Both A.N.S.W.E.R. and UFPJ leaders negotiated on the spot with the police to get the front formed up through an alternate route and we worked with the UFPJ VIPs to get them on the front banner which was unfurled in the middle of the march to create a second "front." When UFPJ wanted to bring the march to a halt so that the press corps could be brought to this second "front" and take pictures of the UFPJ VIPs on the front banner and the UFPJ leadership at the front of the march, we did not object as it was evident that this was very important to them. The broad collection of leaders and organizations designated by A.N.S.W.E.R. to be at the front were unable to make it there because of the huge concentration of people. While this is unfortunate, it is certainly a better problem than having a smaller number of people present. It is unfortunate that UFPJ's relationships with others were "jeopardized" when their VIPs were unable to easily access the front banner.

The logistical problems, however, affected both coalitions. Indeed some of our speakers never got to speak and others for whom we have great respect spoke at the end after UFPJ had drained the joint rally area telling people to march. The original agreement was to have people holding the banner at the front of the march and to have 500 people (250 from each side) behind the front banner with other signs and slogans independently chosen by each coalition. Because of the human gridlock, that contingent did not happen, which, while it may have been a disappointment, should certainly be understood as a very minor event, particularly since it affected equally all partners of the demonstration, and since the real story of the day was not who was in the front but the fact that so many came out into the street in unity.

3) UFPJ claims that A.N.S.W.E.R. did not turn out many volunteers to provide for fundraising, security and media operations for the March and Rally. This is a particularly offensive falsehood as it discounts and seeks to eliminate the hundreds of A.N.S.W.E.R. volunteers and their hard work. A.N.S.W.E.R. volunteers did all of the set up and take down for the joint rally including UFPJ's own banner on the stage. A.N.S.W.E.R. volunteers served as fundraisers and security, and handled media along with UFPJ volunteers. From 6 am on Friday September 23 until 10 pm on Saturday, September 24, only A.N.S.W.E.R. had volunteers working at the joint rally site. For these 40 continuous hours, which included security shifts through the entire night, organizing logistics, and the physical labor of set-up and take-down, UFPJ provided not one volunteer.

The claim is also astounding considering that A.N.S.W.E.R. paid the full cost for the stage, sound, porta-Johns, back-stage set-up and other expenses for the joint rally. UFPJ did not pay one cent. Yet, while A.N.S.W.E.R. paid all the expenses for the joint rally, the fundraising collection at the joint rally was evenly divided between the two coalitions. The money raised from the collection did not cover A.N.S.W.E.R.'s expenses associated with the joint rally. We do agree that many more volunteers from all sides were and are needed but that is a function of the further growth of the movement. The presentation about the facts here is merely to set the record straight. A.N.S.W.E.R. and UFPJ volunteers both worked hard on September 24 and the entire movement owes them our gratitude.

--------------------
Burningham - from Red Flags

burning.typepad.com/burningman/2005/12/ufpj_rejects_fu.html

UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER, ANSWER Responds
In the latest chapter in the 20-year bicker fest between the dueling bureaucracies of Workers World Party and the Communist Party/Committees of Correspondence group behind United for Peace and Justice, UFPJ now rejects future work with ANSWER.

ANSWER has just released their own statement in response, Our Position On Unity In The Antiwar Movement. While their degree of wrong-headedness can't be overestimated, at least they know how to write a political position paper that isn't a list of petty process complaints devoid of content. Compare it to UFPJ's whining about stage management.

It all gets a little complicated, but only if you don't know the players behind the scenes. Both groups follow variations of the Stalin-era Popular Front methodology, articulated by Georgi Dimitrov for the Comintern. The difference today lies in which kind of opportunism they embrace.

------------

ANSWER, Troops Out Now, Workers World and the Party for Socialism and Liberation


Workers World, and their recent (incomprehensible) splinter led by ANSWER leader Brian Becker that formed the Party for Socialism and Liberation, are followers of Sam Marcy's Global Class War theory. This argues, essentially, that anything opposed to US imperialism is ipso facto "revolutionary" and that oppressed nations (including the capitalists of such nations), in the era of imperialism, stand in for the "proletariat." Instead of class struggle, we are to ally ourselves with even the most reactionary third world regimes and movements against the "common enemy" that is US imperialism. The more grotesque implications of this theory has been upholding the Tienanmen Square massacre, defending the autocratic monarchy of "socialist" North Korea and pretending that Slobodan Milosevic is anything but a racist thug. The good side of it is their consistent opposition to ALL manifestations of US imperialism, even when the victims are none too sympathetic.

In the Workers World split, Brian Becker retained control over ANSWER leading WW to form a new coalition called Troops Out Now! Workers World still retains primary influence within the International Action Center. Their politics are exactly the same, and there has been much consternation among analysts on the left who cannot figure out why there was a split. From cursory interviews with members of both factions, I can't figure it out either.

United for Peace and Justice, the CPUSA, Comm. of Correspondence, War Resisters League

On the other hand, UFPJ plays itself off as a more "democratic" coalition -- when in fact they are just more Democratic. The two key players in the UFPJ national office are the CoC co-chair Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc, a ranking member of the Communist Party, USA. While they are comfortable letting WW get baited for "Stalinism," it is no secret that the CPUSA not only took direction directly from the Soviet state well past its glory years, but they were the most enthusiastic defenders of every Soviet crime. Today, as Red Flags has noted before, the CP's leader Sam Webb upholds not just the current police state of China as a literal model (a position even worse than WW's if that were possible), but advocates that parties out of power follow the path of Salvador Allende... because we all know how great that turned out. Today the CP backs organizations such as the Iraqi Communist Party, a pro-occupation grouplet that has actively connived with the occupation authority and opposes resistance on principle.

For her part, Leslie Cagan will forever be infamous for upholding the sanctions against Iraq during the first Gulf War that went on to kill over 500,000 children. Her logic was simple: whatever the Democratic Party's imperial leadership demanded, the left is supposed to tow. She also urged the left to embrace the yellow ribbon "support the troops" nonsense -- while those very troops were killing tens of thousands of Arabs. ANSWER notes this history in their response. They shouldn't be the only ones to condemn that position and understand why it was so bad.


UFPJ tends not to engage in open polemics, but lets proxy authors such as right-wing liberal Marc Cooper, plain-old liberal David Corn and the indefatigable Bill Weinberg (2002, 2003, 2005) pen attacks on their behalf. Weinberg has his most recently recycled attack piece shamefully printed as the lead article in the Non-Violent Activist, publication of the pacifist War Resisters League.

Following the Argument


Others such as Jeff Mackler and, separately, the RCP have responded to the red-baiting that the right wing of the left has been deploying for years. Ed Herman takes Weinberg's sleazy and dishonest writing to task on Znet, and reams what he calls the Cruise Missle Left in a must-read essay. Hell, I might as well throw in the Nation's 2002 tempest-in-a-teapot threeway between Corn, Cooper and Alexander Cockburn. This shit's been flying for years.

What is most shocking about all this is that Weinberg (and Cooper) actually support the occupation. Here's what Weinberg has to say about the continuing occupation of Iraq -- the current hot-button issue for the antiwar movement:

Sound-bite pseudo-analysis is an inherent danger of activism, which must be guarded against at all times. Slogans like "Bring the troops home" and "US out of Iraq" are handy for fitting on a placard, but they inevitably dodge the really tough questions. Having now plunged Iraq into social entropy, destroyed the country's infrastructure and brought to a boil myriad ethnic and religious conflicts which had been simmering under the Saddam dictatorship, it might be the height of irresponsibility for the US to just unilaterally withdraw. It would, in fact, be a violation of the responsibilities of an occupying power under international law.

We must be clear that US imperialism will never act in the interests of the Iraqi people, whatever rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" is cynically employed. Empires act in the interests of empire: they always have and always will. But a unilateral withdrawal which allows genuinely freedom-hating jihadis to take power would not be in the interests of the Iraqi people either. "US out of Iraq" only works as a demand if we have some kind alternative to offer. [read]

No, no it doesn't. What a load of imperial chauvinist crap, which must be "guarded against at all times." If anyone is "supporting" Islamic fundamentalists, it's the Saudis and Gulf emirates -- with a long history of CIA assistance. But apparently Kuwaiti elections will have to wait...

Weinberg stated Saturday evening on NYC Indymedia that he is against the occupation and identifies as an anti-imperialist. He also continues to play "devil's advocate" on the issue. The following mea culpa is so disengenous at face that it can only be called dissembling. Weinberg consistently seeks out various "third forces." Not just in Iraq. It's something of a vocation. Sometimes he hits, as in Mexico. More often he misses.


I am anti-imperialist and anti-ocupation. I have soought over the past two years to loan vigorous solidarity to the forces in Iraq which are are opposed to the occupation, the collaborationist regime and the jihadi "resistance" alike: the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, the Federation of Worker Councils and Unions in Iraq, the Iraqi Freedom Congress and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq. I have put their representatives on WBAI, and run the interviews in my online newsletter World War 4 Report. Would that my critics would devote a fraction of the time they expend bashing those who tell unconvenient truths to actually providing some solidarity to the Iraqi secular anti-imperialist left.

In their weakness, my critics inevitably turn to comments I wrote over two years ago in which I was taking a Devil's Advocate position to show up the inconsistencies in the left's position. Do you really think it is kosher, after our government has unleashed the jihadis on Iraq, for us (meaning the anti-war forces) to merely wash out hands like Pilate and walk away? We owe vigorous solidarity to Iraq's secular left. This is what I argued: no more and no less.

Those who wish to approach the question honestly (and not merely for scoring points) are directed to original essay which my opponents have quoted out of context here.

I can't speak for Pilate because I don't identify with Caesar. From what I know of old Bible days, the Zealots didn't read Thomas Jefferson. They didn't turn the other cheek. They fought Rome.

------------------

What does all this mean for the antiwar movement?

This might be provocative, but I don't think it means a damn thing. Neither of these bureaucracies has much to offer besides getting permits for marches in DC. Both are as bereft of ideas as they have been for decades. While it was good when they could unite for protest in DC, mass marches aren't going to end the war. And 40s-vintage Popular Frontism in either variety won't stop the war any more than it will usher in socialism. It destroyed the left for a generation when Stalin first imposed it on the international left, and after decades of defeat it's amazing anyone still believes it (even if most don't know where it comes from!).

Now that the majority of Americans are against the war, at least the losing part of it, more radical and direct-action oriented forces need to pick up direct opposition to the Bush regime, building the student movment and counter-recruiting to sap the ability of the armed forces to wage war.

It's going to take everything that is -- including the supreme lameness of UFPJ and ANSWER -- plus a whole lot more to stop the real enemy. For those who don't like the current trends available -- show us how it's done!