Notes on the UFPJ Conference (June 6-8, Chicago)

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

I attended the United for Peace and Justice conference in Chicago, on
June 6-8, as a delegate of a local group Columbus Campaign for Arms
Control ("over 500 participants attended, from 38 states and
approximately 350 organizations," according to UFPJ).  I'm happy to
have attended the conference, meeting many organizers and
intellectuals whom I wouldn't have been able to meet otherwise
(networking is always the best part of any conference).  More or
less, I got what I bargained for.  I chose to go to the UFPJ
conference, rather than the May 17-18 International ANSWER conference
(which about "850 activists and organizers" attended, according to
ANSWER), because I thought that whether or not I attended the ANSWER
conference would make no difference in its outcome.  The politics of
ANSWER is clearly determined by its steering committee, whose members
are strongly united by a principle of anti-imperialism.  For better
and worse, there wouldn't have been much to be discussed at the
ANSWER conference.  UFPJ, a coalition of national and local groups
with divergent perspectives on many issues, is another story.  On one
hand, UFPJ is a little more open to democratic participation from
below than ANSWER (though the UFPJ conference, too, was firmly
managed from above by its organizers at certain key points).  On the
other hand, UFPJ finds it more difficult to work out a clearly
anti-imperialist political direction (rather than just an anti-Bush
or anti-war position) than ANSWER does.

Below you'll find some of my observations (taking good points for
granted, I concentrate on the concerns that Ted Glick didn't discuss
in his article about the conference "UFPJ Takes Big Leap Forward" @
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1764>).

* Independent Politics

I concur with Ted Glick on his observation about UFPJ and the
Democratic Party: "Surprisingly, in my opinion, the body did not
adopt an amendment which would have added 'participate in the process
of defeating the Bush agenda' as part of that main goal. This
happened, apparently, for two reasons: concern from some non-profit
UFPJ member groups about this being a potential legal problem for
them, and concern from others that this statement would be
interpreted as pro-Democratic Party" ("UFPJ Takes Big Leap Forward,"
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1764>).  It is a
hopeful sign that the conference was not dominated by a contingent
who wanted the rest of us to devote most of our time to electing
Democrats to defeat "the Bush agenda."  Presentations by the
advocates of independent politics at the workshop for electoral
politics were lackluster, however, indicative of the weak positions
of supporters of Third-Party campaigns (e.g., the Greens have yet to
find an appropriate presidential candidate).  It remains to be seen
what character UFPJ actions around the Republican and Democratic
Party conventions and other election-centered campaigns (see #3 at
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755>) will assume.

* People of Color, Israel and Palestinians, Etc.

It is great that 51.5% of the newly elected UFPJ steering committee
are people of color.  Affirmative action works!  What's not so great
is that people of color were only a tiny minority of all delegates to
the conference.  Hotel rooms were paid by UFPJ for delegates who
shared rooms, but travel expenses must have been, as always,
obstacles for low-income organizers (not to mention time off from
work, child care arrangements, etc.).  Aside from the costs of
attending the conference (not all of which UFPJ could possibly
defray), there is a question: what special efforts did the conference
organizers make to increase the participation of people of color?  It
appeared that there were few organizers of Arab descent, few
organizers of Muslim heritage, and few black organizers at the
conference.  Were Al-Awda, the Muslim Students' Association, various
Arab-American organizations, student groups working on divestment
from Israel, etc. specifically invited to send delegates to the
conference?  What of local organizations whose members are
predominantly black?  Were they not personally invited?  Or they were
invited but couldn't or didn't want to come?  The demographics of the
delegates did, I think, have an impact on the overall political
atmosphere of the conference.  For instance, immigrant delegates and
delegates of color kept saying that repression didn't start with the
USA Patriot Act, that even most of the post-911 political arrests,
detentions, and deportations were made under the criminal and
immigration laws and regulations that predate the USA Patriot Act,
etc., but somehow the number one UFPJ campaign priority became
fighting against the USA Patriot Act: "Specific actions for
consideration include supporting the on-going work for Civil Liberty
Safe Cities, to repeal and defeat Patriot Acts I and II as well as
the Bill of Rights action proposal from IPS [Institute for Policy
Studies] (section 2 of IPS)" (see
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755> and
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1734#ips>) -- not a
very promising approach if one of the main goals of the campaign is
to appeal to and mobilize more people of color.  The paucity of Arab,
Muslim, and/or black delegates, in my opinion, also had an impact on
the discussion of Israel and Palestinians or lack thereof.

The people of color caucus met twice during the conference, but, due
to the packed schedule of the conference, the caucus meetings were
inconveniently scheduled (the first meeting of the caucus took place
after all other officially scheduled events on the first day, very
late at night), with little time for work.  Nevertheless, the people
of color caucus managed to craft and submit two amendments to the
unity statement (the unity statement is posted at
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1737>): one
(brainstormed and drafted by Rania Masri and Yoshie Furuhashi) to
clarify the Israeli-occupied territories, to affirm the importance of
the Palestinians' right of return, and to steer the focus of the
unity statement away from the Bush administration in particular and
onto the US government in general; the other (drafted by Saulo Colon
of the Vieques Support Campaign) to include clear and concrete
anti-imperialist demands in the unity statement (the former was also
approved by the Palestine caucus).  Amendments to the unity statement
were to be discussed on the last day of the conference, but the
organizers clearly wished not to have them debated on the floor, as
they presented the choice to discuss the amendments as the dead last
of the five choices (the other four being all choices to avoid
discussing them).  Most of the (mostly white) delegates -- in part
taking the cue from the conference organizers, in part expressing
their own impatience at the slow pace of the conference (things went
behind the schedule on both the first and the second day), and in
part not knowing what signal their vote would really send --
overwhelmingly voted to adopt the draft unity statement as "work in
progress," as Ted Glick reported.  The reason I feel that more than a
simple concern about time may have motivated the conference
organizers to encourage the delegates not to discuss the unity
statement at the conference at all is that there were much anxieties
in the air as soon as some folks got the wind of a proposal for an
amendment that includes the mention of the Palestinian refugees'
right of return (I was approached by several nervous individuals
wishing to see the proposed amendment before it got submitted).
Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that, while amendments to
the strategic framework, an alternative proposal for the UFPJ
structure, and amendments to the UFPJ structure -- all submitted by
_individuals_ -- were discussed at length, the ones proposed by the
people of color _caucus_ merited no discussion time.  Thus it turned
out that the people of color and Palestine caucuses met mostly in
vain (though we did get to network a little, discuss nominations for
the steering committee briefly [at the people of color caucus], and
debate pros and cons of some proposals [at the Palestine caucus] --
we didn't have enough time to discuss medium- to long-term strategic
concerns).  Apparent "unity" was achieved at the cost of not
listening to the voice of the people of color caucus and not having a
potentially controversial question deliberated collectively.

UFPJ _will_ conduct a campaign for "Justice for Palestine" (though,
as Ted Glick wrote, the idea didn't get as much support as campaigns
to fight against the USA Patriot Act and to defend civil liberties
and immigrant rights, an effort to link UFPJ with the global justice
movement [especially mobilizations around the Sept. 10-13 WTO meeting
in Cancun], a campaign "to progressively impact the 2004 election and
key policies"): "UFPJ will initiate a campaign for justice in
Palestine, with another International Day of Action as a focus, which
will build on the success of June 5 and may include coordinated local
actions in many countries, including Israel and Palestine.  An
educational and outreach program will build toward the actions,
including a speaking tour that may include Palestinians and returning
members of the International Solidarity Movement.  Longterm campaign
may include divestment campaigns, support for SUSTAIN'S focus on
Caterpillar tractor, and other strategies.  A working group will be
convened to find a date and craft a message that will assure broad
participation and sensitivity to both the Palestinian and Jewish
communities" (see #4 at
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755>).  (In "many
countries, including Israel and Palestine" -- an expression that
explains why the right of return couldn't be discussed at the
conference...but let's move onto the topic of tactics.)  Aside from a
proposed International Day of Action, it is not clear what UFPJ will
do except support what's already happening: ISM activist speaking
tours, SUSTAIN's Cat campaign, and divestment campaigns.  Moreover,
what does it mean to "build on the success of June 5"?  I suppose
"June 5" refers to the call for "the International Day of Action for
Justice in Palestine" described at
<http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/PalestineAction_June5.html>.
I don't think that this call got very far, much less fostered "broad
participation"; nor have I seen any media coverage of "June 5"
(despite my Google & Lexis-Nexis searches).  I suggest that the next
International Day of Action be built up in a way different than "June
5" was.

"[S]ensitivity to both the Palestinian and Jewish communities" may
sound laudable, but what will it translate in practice?  During the
discussion about whether or not to endorse the ANSWER-sponsored
"Global Day of Protest against Occupation and Empire" on September 27
(the third anniversary of the beginning of the second Intifada), some
objected to the idea because the date also falls on the beginning of
Rosh Hashanah.  I thought that objections were reasonable until I
heard one man expressing his view that it is a matter of "Jewish
self-determination" (!!!) not to support a protest against Israeli
occupation on Rosh Hashanah (no one booed him, though the remark did
raise some eyebrows).  Now, it may or may not be a good idea to have
a protest on a Jewish high holy day.  At the very least, it sure
would discourage participation of observant Jews.  It may also
influence how the media would frame the coverage of the protest.
Such pragmatic questions are valid, however you answer them.  In
contrast, bringing up an idea of "Jewish self-determination" in this
context (i.e. discussing when to protest the Israeli occupation!!!)
indicates a deep political confusion, the confusion that the
conference failed to clarify due to its avoidance of any difficult
question.  A black woman eventually spoke up to counter the
objections, saying (I paraphrase from memory) that if Israel can take
away land from Palestinians on any Muslim holy day, Palestinians can
try to take it back on any Jewish holy day (or something to that
effect).  For her effort, she got screamed at by a white man.

* ANSWER

Some people's objections to "the Global Day of Protest against
Occupation and Empire" on September 27 stemmed from their antipathy
to ANSWER.  At the Palestinian caucus, I even heard one man say that
ANSWER is anti-Semitic because of some of the speakers that it chose
for its rallies (his remark didn't get more concrete than this).
Feelings about ANSWER and stances toward Israel and Palestinians
appeared to be intertwined in the minds of some delegates, though the
nexus between them remained largely a subtext at the conference.
Frank discussion would have been welcome (though I'm sure it would
have been time-consuming, some activities at the conference that
ended up mainly busy work -- e.g., the speakers on "The Bush
Administration's Permanent War Agenda at Home and Abroad,"
small-group discussion about "Assessing Our Movement," and "Workshops
on Challenges Facing the Movement" on the first day -- could have
been profitably replaced by more political discussion at caucuses and
plenaries).  That said, the conference did vote to mandate the
incoming steering committee to create a standing liaison committee to
work out inter-coalition relations with major national coalitions
(ANSWER, Win Without War, Racial Justice 9-11, the National Network
to End the War Against Iraq), as proposed by Michael Letwin of New
York City Labor Against War (he had tried to set up such a liaison
committee long before this conference, but his idea finally got put
into effect).  It will be up to the newly elected steering committee
(at least a third of whose members are likely to be strong voices for
politics independent of the Democratic Party), via the aforementioned
liaison committee, to work in a non-sectarian fashion with ANSWER and
other coalitions to plan a big and feisty International Day of Action
against the occupations and other joint actions.

* Youth & LGBT

Not too many young persons attended the conference (it's hard to
evaluate the demographics in terms of sexual orientation).  The
majority of delegates appeared to be above 30 years old.  In this
case, affirmative action couldn't remedy the problem on the spot.
11.5% of those elected to the steering committee were youth and 11.5%
are LGBT, whereas the targets were 20% youth and 15% LGBT.  As Ted
Glick mentioned, however, there is a provision for adding more
individuals to the steering committee to meet the targets and/or to
include representatives of important organizations that decide to
join UFPJ after the conference.

* Disabled

I talked with a genderqueer woman from Buffalo who uses a cane about
accommodations for the disabled.  Here, I report the concerns that
she mentioned.  Some meals were provided in a buffet style --
unfriendly to some disabled individuals.  The conference volunteers
didn't seem well informed about how to make room changes convenient
for the disabled (e.g., being unable to answer where the closest
elevator is).  On the second day of the conference, we had to move
from Holiday Inn (where the entire conference was originally
scheduled to take place) to Westin, for the plenary for discussion of
the UFPJ structure.  For an able-bodied person, the 10-minute walk
between the hotels presented no difficulty, but, for some disabled
individuals, the distance meant walking for more than 30 minutes.
The genderqueer woman ended up taking a cab on the way back to
Holiday Inn.  She told me that she had contacted UFPJ before the
conference to express suggestions about how to make the conference
accessible to the disabled, but her suggestions were not incorporated
into it.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that what I wrote above is not
meant to discourage anyone from taking part in UFPJ.  The opposite is
the case.  I strongly encourage all anti-imperialists -- especially
those whose activism is focused on the question of Palestine -- to
actively participate in UFPJ.  You can take for granted that ANSWER
will try to organize strong mass mobilizations against the Israeli
occupation, without hesitating to affirm the Palestinian refugees'
right of return.  You can't take for granted that UFPJ -- a coalition
more representative of the wide range of opinions about Israel,
Palestinians, and US imperialism found among left-of-center activists
in the USA -- will do so, so your voice needs to be heard.

Postscript:

Here's the text of one of the proposed amendments to the unity
statement submitted by the people of color caucus that didn't get
discussed at the conference:

*****   (1)  In the paragraph beginning with "U.S. military
involvement is on the rise in Latin America...," change the following
sentence from: "U.S. political, economic, and military aid is fueling
Israel's rise as an unchallengeable regional military power and
sustains Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank,
Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and its denial of equal rights to
Palestinians."

To:

"U.S. political, economic, and military aid is fueling Israel's rise
as an unchallengeable regional military power and sustains Israel's
illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza, and East
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the Cheba'a Farms of
Lebanon, and Israel's denial of equal rights to Palestinians."

(2) Add the following two sentences at the end of the same paragraph:

"We support and recognize the need for equal and secular rights to
all citizens and residents in Israel, regardless of religious
affiliation.  Any peace process must recognize that the right of
return for the 6.5 million Palestinian refugees cannot be separated
from the struggle for justice and peace."

(3) Change all references from the "Bush administration" to the "Bush
administration and the U.S. government."   *****
--
Yoshie

* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>