[PEN-L:33002] Re: sodexho and workers and colleges

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

e. ahmet tonak wrote:
>   United for Peace vs. ANSWER
>
> Can anyone clarify the relationship between these two organizations?
>  Are they excluding each other as they compete with each other?  Is
> there any other --in addition to being anti-stalinist-- political reason
> for developing two parallel anti-war organizations?

I inquired about that on another list, and got the following reply. It
appears that United For Peace is working with ANSWER (or vice versa).

I had started the exchange with the following post:

Subject: Re: [R-G] -- An Antiwar Message from a new Coalition ZNet
Supports
       Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:03:25 -0600
      From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>

If these new coalitions intend to enter into larger coalitions and joint
actions with coalitions already established, this is indeed a step
forward.

If they do not so intend, it is a sectarian action and will seriously
interfere with opposition to the war against Iraq.

I am disturbed that the original calls give no indication of their
attitude towards or intended relations with other coalitions and groups
opposed to the war.

Carrol

Tom Siblo than posted the list as follows. (He and others are
establishing a new regional coalition, as earlier posts had indicated.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [R-G] -- An Antiwar Message from a new Coalition ZNet
Supports
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:26:12 -0500
From: Tom Siblo <tsiblo@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: rad-green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Carrol:

In our area only A.N.S.W.E.R. currently exists and basically calls all
the
demonstrations and everyone else participates which is fine. The
A.N.S.W..E.R. coalition representative was asked if he would participate
and
feels its not how he wants to work Frankly we have worked together
regardless because I am a member of ANSWER

 Historically in the Hudson Valley we have had a central action
coalition
which coordinates work between the other independent local committees.
There
are now over 40 individual ant-war groups and the night Daniel Barrigan
came
to Bard was the same night Judith Yurell from Gus Shalom was in town.
Activists had to pick and choose. If we had a coordinating body we could
have avoided this duplication. Another example everyone wanted to have
representatives from War Resistors League to train new activists in
civil
disobedience. So each group started pulling in different directions when
the
activity could have been coordinated and the number of people maximized.

There was some red-baiting involved which I not a member of WWP and a
long
time A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition member received the brunt of.  WWP members
were
excluded deliberately a number of years ago which was entirely wrong.

Back in the Vietnam days I was red baited for being in the YSA at the
time
and I know exactly what you mean. My approach to this is be as open as
possible and non-exclusionary.  So my proposal may be a minority
viewpoint
at this organizing meeting because there are some individuals who do not
trust A.N.S.W.E.R. or WWP.

My peace group has been trying to get David McReynolds to come and speak
for
over a year. So we finally got him to come and he addressed the issue of
what are viewed as problems with A.N.S.W.E.R.  He stated he knows the
national leaders of the coalition and the WWP and the problem is their
unwillingness to work with other groups on the left in developing the
character of the protest being planned. He was not coming from a
red-baiting
position. He was speaking as both a member of WRL and the Socialist
Party
USA. The leading A.N.S.W.E.R. organizers asked no questions of Mc
Reynolds,
however those who are sympathetic to the WWP saying they really don't
care
all they are interested in is building the biggest united movement
possible
against the war.

For the Hudson Valley we are not at all that sophisticated as to
factionalism and sectarianism. I have said it at meetings I will work
with
everyone who are against this war with Iraq whether they are
Republicans,
Democrats, Communists, anarchists, members of RCP or WWP.

The proposal is designed to generate discussion and bring unity and if
it
works then we have avoided an unnecessary split within the antiwar
movement
at least regionally. On a national level I am not sure how things are
going
but now is the time to stay together.

for a unified peace movement

Tom Siblo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rad-green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [R-G] -- An Antiwar Message from a new Coalition ZNet
Supports

>
>
> Tom Siblo wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Carrol for your input. Could you suggest some specific language
> > because its the intent of the organizers to add rather detract.
> >
> >
>
> That's a tough one. One possibility (short run): Announce as one of your
> current tasks mobilizing people for the January 18 demos. That in
> itself, without any statements about other coalitions by name, would
> indicate willingness.
>
> There has been a tremendous amount of red-baiting of the ANSWER
> coalition, and while I am no fan of WWP, it simply does not do in an
> anti-war drive to in effect black list any organizations. Thousands of
> us in the '60s who disliked the SWP intensely nevertheless worked hard
> to mobilize people to attend demos organized by a SWP-led coalition.
>
> Carrol
>