[Marxism] [ufpjnyc] A.N.S.W.E.R. Responds To UFPJ: Our Position On Unity In The Anti-War Movement

["Linda Rivera" <lrivera1232000@xxxxxxxxx> (by way of Mike Friedman)]

A.N.S.W.E.R. RESPONDS TO UFPJ:
OUR POSITION ON UNITY IN THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT

> From A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Steering Committee
December 16, 2005

(A formatted version of the A.N.S.W.E.R. statement can be found at:
http://www.pephost.org/ANSWERrespondstoUFPJ)

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 (http://
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

(A formatted version of the A.N.S.W.E.R. statement can be found at:
http://www.pephost.org/ANSWERrespondstoUFPJ)

-------------------------------
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
http://www.ANSWERcoalition.org

________________________________________________
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