[Marxism] A.N.S.W.E.R. Responds to UFPJ

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just received this in my email, and since the original UFPJ statement on
the situation was posted here, it seems this should be too. This can be
found on the web here:

http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=7433

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):
http://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.

*www.house.gov/murtha/index.shtml



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism