|
An
international call for March 2008 worldwide protests to mark the fifth
anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was issued in London on
Dec. 1. The 1200 delegates from 43 nations at the World Against War conference
voted unanimously to call on antiwar movements in every country to
organize mass protests demanding that all troops be withdrawn from Iraq
and Afghanistan. They opposed any U.S. attack on Iran. The broad-based London call
paralleled and reinforced another call by antiwar activist Cindy
Sheehan and other forces in the United States for mass antiwar
demonstrations in March 2008.
Unfortunately,
despite these important initiatives, it now appears that the fifth
anniversary will come and go without a mass mobilization in the
U.S.—the main country responsible for the Iraq War. This default of the
leading U.S. antiwar organizations is the most serious evidence yet of
a movement in crisis.
UFPJ rejects mass action
Over
the weekend of Dec. 8 and 9, the Steering Committee of United For Peace
and Justice (UFPJ) met in New York City. The committee rejected three
separate but overlapping appeals to co-sponsor a national mass
demonstration on the fifth anniversary.
Instead,
they considered a variety of proposals for local actions, all of them
clearly oriented toward lobbying, influencing, or electing Democrats
during the 2008 election year.
What's
more, the theme of all the proposals was not to end the war, but to get
the Democrats to "stop selling out" and stop funding the war.
This shows a tragic misunderstanding of the nature of the Democratic
Party. Its politicians haven't "sold out" on the war. They don't need stiffer spines or
proof of more support before voting the right way. Their consistent
pro-war votes reflect their true nature as creatures of the ruling
class.
At
the June 2007 UFPJ National Assembly, which initiated the Oct. 27
regional demonstrations, the discrepancy between the often cited figure
of 70 percent of the people in the U.S. opposed to the war, and the
still modest numbers mobilized in mass actions against it, was properly
used as motivation to work harder to boost turn out for the fall
actions.
Now
that 70 percent figure has taken on a different life: In the opening
session of the December Steering Committee, UFPJ co-chair Leslie Cagan
tried to explain that much of that 70 percent consists of people who don't
care about Iraqi lives but are merely distressed at the mismanagement
of the war. With this explanation, a huge antiwar majority inspiring mobilizing
efforts has now become a justification for demobilization.
The
Steering Committee decided that its strategic goals for 2008 in regard
to Iraq were counter-recruitment, military resistance support, and cutting
congressional funding. The former goal was to be achieved by supporting
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and other veterans' events.
Several
proposals for local actions were put forward—all explicitly
counterposed to mass national demonstrations. The options considered
were (1) holding actions at each of the 435 local offices of members of
Congress; (2) calling several protests in a variety of cities or
regions; or (3) a civil disobedience action to shut down either
Congress or the Pentagon.
None
of these were projected as involving large numbers of people. Even the
attempt to shut down Congress, said the proposal’s maker, Lisa Fithian,
head of UFPJ's Nonviolent Direct Action Working Group, needn't be
big. She directly counterposed
it to calls for a march in Washington of several hundred thousand, and
said that what is needed instead is a march of 10,000—with 500 or 1000
willing to get arrested.
Of
course, the proposal for actions in every congressional district was
the one most openly geared toward bending Democratic Party ears. Its
mover, Josh Ruebner of the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, said
that national demonstrations are too costly. And more important, in his
mind: "We don't need the morass of getting bogged down in coalition
politics."
In
his written proposal, Ruebner claimed that UFPJ's past national and
regional actions proved it was difficult, if not impossible, to turn
out a significant chunk of the 70 percent opposed to the war. What's
more, mobilizing large numbers in 2008 would be impossible anyway, and
convincing Congress to vote to cut off appropriations for the war
"seems the most likely way to achieve UFPJ's goals during the
remainder of the Bush administration." He saw his proposal as a
complement to civil disobedience at the Capitol.
One
steering committee member said she was uncomfortable with an exclusive
focus on cutting off funding, reminding the group that "our goal
is to bring the troops home." Phyllis Bennis, UFPJ's leading ideologue,
replied that while that may be our long-term goal, in 2008 the goal has
to be to stop the funding, so actions focused on getting the Democrats’
ears are key.
Throughout
the consideration of the various proposals for local action, negative
references were made to calls for national demonstrations by other
forces. Cindy Sheehan's call
for a unified national action, outlined in detail below, was described
repeatedly—and inaccurately—as primarily an effort to unite UFPJ and
the ANSWER Coalition, ignoring the role of other 20 antiwar groups in
the effort.
The New
England letter
An
observer at the meeting distributed copies of a letter written in early
November by a working group set up by New England United. The letter
had already been sent to groups throughout the movement, and was seeking
feedback on the idea of a national mass demonstration on the fifth
anniversary. The letter mentioned the initiative for a spring 2008
national demonstration by forces working with Cindy Sheehan. NEU was formed to support the Oct.
27 regional actions called by UFPJ, but from the start was purposely structured
to be broader than just regional affiliates of UFPJ. The result, as in
other cities that organized broader coalitions for Oct. 27, was quite
positive—the 10,000 who marched on Boston Common constituted one of the
biggest and most youthful turnouts on that day. And the experience encouraged
regional activists to continue to build NEU.
However,
the NEU working-group letter was ignored by the UFPJ Steering
Committee, some of whose leaders had previously asked why NEU was
operating "on a parallel
track"
and "going around us," as if UFPJ is the antiwar movement in
and of itself.
The
Committee also ignored a proposal that included the idea of a spring national
demonstration from its own affiliate in the region, Boston-based United
for Justice with Peace. The proposal supported "one unified mass
action that somehow avoids competing
demonstrations."
But such appeals for unity were dismissed by the Committee as foolish.
One
of the materials handed out in the packet was UFPJ's 2005 document
rejecting any future work with ANSWER, a discussion which had been
reprised at a pre-meeting Steering Committee conference call. Late in the
day Saturday, after a decision on which local action proposal to
approve was tabled until Sunday, a straw poll was taken to see whether
there was even enough support to bother discussing the Sheehan initiative.
The
direction in which things were headed was made even clearer, if such
were needed, by a rephrasing of the straw poll to determine whether
there was any interest in talking about pursuing unity with ANSWER, once
again mischaracterizing the Sheehan forces' proposal.
Only
three hands out of 16 Steering Committee members were raised, but this
was sufficient to secure a discussion the following day. After this
discussion had made clear the almost unanimous disinterest in working
with anyone interested in a national demonstration, Bennis encouraged
UFPJ to reach out to the "rest of the movement," which she
then explained meant MoveOn, Win Without War, and other pro-Democratic
Party forces.
Clearly,
the almost unanimous desire to avoid working with a broad array of
forces in the movement favoring mass action overlaps with UFPJ's
orientation in 2008 to focus on currying favor with the Democrats. A unified
national mobilization—even a national demonstration UFPJ could run
itself or at least have preponderant influence in—cuts across that in
their minds.
The
Monday after the Steering Committee was concluded—even before a
scheduled Sheehan/Year Five-initiative conference call at which UFPJ
was to give its response to the 5th anniversary proposal—UFPJ issued a statement
on the results of its meeting that pointedly excluded the possibility
of working with the rest of the movement on a joint national action.
They
announced that their sights were set on getting the next Congress and
president to end the war and occupation in Iraq. And, in an echo of Bennis'
urging that UFPJ broaden itself out to the right, they announced they
would "continue to build alliances with other antiwar forces as
well as other progressive movements for peace and justice."
They
further announced that the "many different tactics" to be
used in 2008 would include "activities and projects specifically
related to the election-year cycle." The action proposals decided
on included "what we hope will be the largest nonviolent civil disobedience
action yet against the war in Iraq," that is, encouraging people
to do civil disobedience in Washington, D.C., on March 19. Those who
couldn’t make it to D.C. were encouraged to protest on that day at the
435 congressional offices.
Soon
afterwards, UFPJ sent an e-mail to all its member groups rejecting
collaboration with the Sheehan initiative. It ruled out participating
in a coalition around the 5th anniversary, adding: "It
was not clear how being part of another coalitional structure would help
move all of this work forward. And that's what is most important ...
moving the work forward." By which, obviously, they just mean
moving UFPJ's work forward.
Less
than two weeks after the Steering Committee had adopted its Democratic
Party oriented action agenda came more evidence—as if any were needed—of
the futility of relying on the Democrats, as they voted yet again, to
the tune of $70 billion, more money for Washington's wars, with no
restrictions or timetable on troop deployments.
In
a Dec. 21 statement, Cagan called the vote "a disgrace." But
it can only be said to be a disgrace if one expects something different
from those warmongers.
The Cindy
Sheehan initiative
In
November, prominent antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan announced an
initiative to try to unite the antiwar movement around a national demonstration
in Washington to mark the fifth anniversary as well as a peace summit
to be held in late January 2008.
In
a column entitled "Come Together, Right Now!," Sheehan wrote
that she "left the peace movement in May of this year partially
out of frustration over this lack of unity. At the time I was in
despair over the fact that our movement had been unable to stop anything
because of the egos and the infighting."
But
the continued horrors of war, she said, as well as new economic and
environmental dangers, inspired her to give it another shot. Sheehan
set up two conference calls involving many prominent antiwar groups, including
not only ANSWER and UFPJ, but also Iraq Veterans Against the War
(IVAW), Gold Star Families for Peace, Camp Casey Peace Institute,
CODEPINK Women For Peace, AfterDowningStreet.org, Muslim American Society Freedom
Foundation, Common Ground Collective New Orleans, Hip Hop Caucus, World
Can't Wait, ImpeachBush.org, Cindy for Congress, National Council of
Arab Americans, Grassroots America, Democracy Rising, and Voters for
Peace.
All
participants on the calls agreed to a proposal for bicoastal national
demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco—except UFPJ's
Leslie Cagan, who said she would have to consult her upcoming Steering Committee
meeting.
After
the UFPJ Steering Committee rejected the Sheehan proposal, another
conference call, as well as some behind-the-scenes discussions, led to
the issuance of a public call for the March 15 demonstration, as well as
support for UFPJ's proposed March 19 activities. The call was explicitly motivated as
being "in solidarity with those planning similar events around the
world."
The
activities were to be organized by the "Iraq Occupation 5th
Anniversary U.S. Mobilization Committee." In an apparent effort to
head off unilateral actions by any participants, the announcement said
that by signing the call "you agree to coordinate announcements as
part of the committee, contribute to these events, and not oppose or
take actions that hurt any of these events.
The
call also announced Sheehan's proposed peace summit, to be held in San
Francisco, Jan. 18-20, 2008, "to bring all of the various groups
together so we can strategize and brainstorm more effective ways of challenging
war and injustices."
The
summit would work out the details of the national demonstrations. As
described on the Camp Casey Peace Institute website, attendance would
be limited to 125 participants. Other than one rally open to all, with live
blogging for those in other cities, all sessions in the proposed agenda
would have been held in small groups rather than in open, voting
plenary sessions. This process
would have been the opposite of that used at the best of the
conferences during the Vietnam War era, where large, open, meetings of
hundreds or even thousands of activists from the entire spectrum of the
antiwar movement voted to set dates, locations, and demands for
actions, and steering committees elected at the conference were then
left to work out the logistics.
Of
course, it was not just Sheehan's proposed summit that failed to live
up to this more democratic conception. Since the Iraq War began, not a
single open, mass antiwar conference, where the full range of the
movement's groups and activists could come together to decide its
course, has been convened.
Winter
Soldier hearings
The
March 15 demo, it was announced, would support the IVAW’s planned
Winter Soldier hearings. But soon after issuance of the call, a
representative of Mass Global Action (MGA) circulated a letter from
IVAW Executive Director Kelly Dougherty opposing any Washington, D.C.,
actions other than the Winter Soldier hearings during the March 13 to
16 period. The MGA spokesperson asked groups around the country to hold
off endorsing March 15 until a conference call between the Sheehan forces
and IVAW had been conducted.
The
upshot of that conference call was an announcement by Sheehan canceling
both the March 15 demonstration as well as the peace summit. Sheehan
also announced that the ongoing dissension in the movement had convinced
her that further efforts at achieving unity were fruitless. She stated
that she would forthwith focus all energies on her run against House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her San Francisco congressional seat.
The
fact that the IVAW objections were the catalyst for the dissolution of
the Sheehan initiative for a united mass action must be analyzed. Dougherty's
letter pointed correctly to the crucial role of veterans in the
movement, but it also mirrored the shortsightedness of many in the
movement. Wrote Dougherty,
"For many of us, the most frustrating, depressing thing is to see
the level of detachment and apathy that is so common among the American
people. The antiwar movement seems no closer to ending the occupation,
and more and more people seem content to believe that things in Iraq
are improving and they no longer need to bother themselves with
worrying about it."
The
problem, according to her analysis, was that "the voices of those
who have been to war, have participated in occupation, and have been
the victims and survivors of U.S. foreign aggression are not being heard.
Those of us who know, first hand, the brutal realities of war have
been ignored and marginalized, and
it is well past time that we are given the space and opportunity to
tell our stories."
Dougherty
continued, "This is why IVAW is holding Winter Soldier: Iraq and
Afghanistan, March 13-16 in Washington, D.C. We will offer first-hand,
eyewitness accounts to tell the truth about these occupations; their
impact on the troops, their families, our nation, and the people
of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Certainly
the mass media has largely ignored the voices of antiwar veterans and
active-duty soldiers. But
Dougherty's letter ignores the regular and increasing prominence in
antiwar rallies, marches, and forums of IVAW members organized by every
wing of the movement. And this prominence could have reached new levels
with a program of Winter Soldier hearings buttressed by a huge
Washington, D.C., national action.
Instead,
for Dougherty, the sole focus of the anniversary had to be the Winter
Soldier hearings: Because "Winter Soldier provides a unique
opportunity to reveal the reality of U.S. occupation," and
"in order to give our veterans the necessary space and attention we
deserve to tell our stories, we are requesting that, during Winter
Soldier, March 13-16, the larger antiwar movement calls no national mobilizations
and that there are no local protests or civil disobedience actions in
Washington D.C."
Dougherty
concluded, "IVAW will not endorse any mass mobilizations or
DC-based actions that conflict with Winter Soldier. We feel that
large-scale activities will compete with Winter Soldier and dilute the
voices of those testifying."
This
explanation puts things backwards. A well-organized national
demonstration could have not only drawn attention to the Winter Soldier
hearings, but would have served as a springboard for more military
organizing efforts. Every marcher could have held a sign proclaiming
support for the hearings, and rally organizers could have worked with
IVAW to organize marchers to go back home and build veteran and
active-duty troop-support activities.
Equally
important, a portion of the movement's platform in Washington could
have been turned over to the IVAW to allow veterans’ testimony to be
heard by hundreds of thousands of people.
What next for the movement?
As
mentioned above, several of the regional coalitions formed to build
Oct. 27 set a good example of the potential to build broad, democratic
organizations that could steer clear of ruling-class politics and stay
focused on getting the troops home now.
Many
of the activists in these coalitions had hoped that one of the calls
for national action in 2008 would be agreed upon, and in the absence of
such a call many of these same activists are discussing how to
collaborate to build a national movement that mirrors the inclusion and
democracy practiced in their own groups.
Thinking
through how to get to the kind of movement we want at this particular
stage, and for the long term, will take a combination of informal and
formal discussions, of patient and honest assessment of the challenges
and opportunities ahead.
We
can state concretely our ultimate goal. We need to construct a mass
movement that stands for the immediate and total withdrawal of all U.S.
troops, for mass action aimed at building such a movement, for the movement's
political independence from the rulers' pro-war parties, and for
inclusive, democratic national meetings to decide on and organize around
such a perspective.
As
we go to press national discussions are underway on these very
subjects. We will report on this development in future issues of
Socialist Action.
|