[Peace-discuss] Fw: [UFPJ] UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER

Fri Dec 16 17:44:46 CST 2005

I'm just reading this for the first time now.  Does
anyone else find these reasons for refusing to work
together a little, well, trivial, compared to the
importance of the stated goal?

Ricky 

--- Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Here is today's United for Peace and Justice
> announcement of a
> decisive and apparently irreversible falling-out
> with ANSWER. It would
> seem that the next time we plan a trip to a DC or NY
> demonstration, it
> won't be for a jointly-organized event like that of
> this past
> September 24th.
> 
> A little background for the uninitiated: UFPJ and
> ANSWER are the two
> most prominent national anti-war coalitions. UFPJ
> came into being in
> late 2002 largely as a grassroots response to the
> impending Iraq war.
> UFPJ has grown into the larger coalition by far, but
> focuses much more
> exclusively on Iraq. ANSWER has been around longer,
> technically since
> Sep 14, 2001, but with very strong ties to much
> older organizations.
> ANSWER is more radical (not necessarily a bad thing,
> of course), and
> addresses a much wider spectrum of peace and justice
> issues. ANSWER's
> prodigious demonstration organizing skills are out
> of proportion with
> its smaller size. They are both important
> organizations and it's a
> shame that the long-standing rift between them has
> now degenerated
> into an apparently unbridgeable chasm.
> 
> R
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Leslie Cagan" <lesliecagan at igc.org>
> To: <ufpj at lists.mayfirst.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 2:52 PM
> Subject: [UFPJ] UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER
> 
> 
> : Ending the War in Iraq, Building a Broad Movement
> for Peace and Justice,
> : And Our Experience with A.N.S.W.E.R.
> :
> :  From the Steering Committee, United for Peace and
> Justice
> : December 12, 2005
> :
> : United for Peace and Justice aims to build the
> broadest, most diverse
> : movement for an immediate and complete end to the
> U.S. occupation of
> : Iraq. We see this as our immediate priority in the
> long-term effort to
> : build a durable peace and justice movement that
> connects domestic and
> : international issues. We are committed to working
> in a way that makes it
> : possible for the widest array of people to come
> together around common
> : aims, including communities of color, military
> families, Iraq war
> : veterans and other veterans, the labor movement,
> youth, religious
> : community, the women's and
> lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender movements,
> : professional organizations and community groups.
> :
> : As our coalition moves forward, we try to evaluate
> our experiences in
> : order to strengthen our efforts and overcome our
> shortcomings. In recent
> : months, a difficult and controversial aspect of
> our work has been our
> : engagement with International A.N.S.W.E.R in
> co-sponsoring the September
> : 24, 2005 Washington, D.C. Rally and March.
> Following this experience,
> : and after thorough discussion, the national
> steering committee of United
> : for Peace and Justice has decided not to
> coordinate work with ANSWER
> : again on a national level. Here we want to share
> with all UFPJ member
> : groups our summary of this experience and the
> decisions we have made as
> : a result.
> :
> : In spring 2005, based on previous experiences,
> UFPJ did not believe it
> : would be productive to make coordination with
> ANSWER a centerpiece of
> : our September 24 efforts. (See memo dated May 23rd
> - click here:
> :
> http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2853).
> We had a particular
> : vision for this specific action:
> :
> : (1) its central demands would hone in on ending
> the war in Iraq, thus
> : sending a focused message to the U.S. public and
> providing an entryway
> : into the antiwar movement for the expanding number
> of people prepared to
> : turn out for a protest demonstration; and
> : (2) the connections between the Iraq war and
> Washington's overall empire
> : building, the U.S. support of the illegal
> occupation of Palestinian
> : land, racism, repression and injustice at home
> would be articulated in
> : accessible and creative ways, not only via rally
> speakers, but also at
> : an interactive two day peace and justice festival,
> and throughout a 12
> : hour concert.
> :
> : We did not believe ANSWER shared this perspective
> on the September 24
> : activities. Therefore we decided that working with
> them would hinder
> : rather than help in maximizing the breadth and
> impact of such a
> : demonstration at an urgent political moment.
> :
> : As September 24 came closer and some circumstances
> changed, we changed
> : our perspective. Regarding the weekend in general,
> the spotlight
> : Hurricane Katrina's aftermath put on racism and
> class inequities led us
> : to highlight the demand for Funding Full and Just
> Recovery in the Gulf
> : Coast. Regarding our relations with ANSWER, our
> concerns grew about the
> : potential confusion of having two totally separate
> demonstrations in the
> : same city on the same day. We seriously considered
> the thoughtful
> : concerns expressed by some anti-war groups and
> activists that an
> : agreement for a joint UFPJ-ANSWER action needed to
> be worked out. As a
> : result, after much reflection and without
> unanimity among us, we
> : reversed our earlier decision. With the help of
> mediation by U.S. Labor
> : Against the War, we worked out an agreement with
> ANSWER for joint
> : sponsorship of the September 24 Rally and March
> (but not other weekend
> : activities). (See the text of the agreement, click
> here:
> :
> http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3161).
> :
> : There were two positive results of this agreement.
> First, we avoided the
> : problem of two completely separate demonstrations
> in Washington, DC on
> : September 24. Second, the rancorous public dispute
> over the whos, hows
> : and whys of September 24 was largely ended for the
> important period
> : immediately preceding the action.
> :
> : But there were many negative results as well.
> :
> : First, ANSWER violated the terms of our agreement
> in ways that
> : substantially and negatively impacted September
> 24's message and impact:
> :
> : (1) ANSWER did not honor the agreed-upon time
> limits for its sections of
> : the pre-march Rally, going more than an hour over
> in one section. The
> : time was to be evenly divided in 30 minutes
> segments alternating between
> : the two coalitions. Besides the impact in terms of
> disrespect to other
> : speakers and the attendees in Washington, DC, this
> meant that the C-SPAN
> : broadcast of the rally presented a one-sided
> picture of the antiwar
> : movement to the U.S. public. In the extended
> ANSWER section broadcast on
> : C-SPAN, there was in fact very little focus on, or
> explanation of, the
> : central demand motivating hundreds of thousands of
> people to attend the
> : demonstration: U.S. Out of Iraq Now.
> :
> : (2) ANSWER delayed the start of the March for an
> hour past the agreed
> : upon time. We learned that morning that while our
> agreement with ANSWER
> : was to begin the march at 12:30, the permit ANSWER
> had negotiated with
> : the police had the march starting at 1:30. This
> led to confusion, which
> : in turn prevented the agreed-upon lead contingent
> carrying the
> : agreed-upon lead banner ("End the War in Iraq,
> Bring the Troops Home
> : Now, Justice for Hurricane Victims") from actually
> leading the March.
> : This diluted the March's message - especially in
> terms of media images
> : of the March's front rank. It also jeopardized
> relationships between
> : UFPJ and the representatives of several
> organizations whom we asked be
> : part of the lead contingent of the March. An
> antiwar movement still not
> : as strong as we need to be when compared to the
> tasks before us, in
> : which developing relationships of mutual trust and
> accountability is of
> : vital importance, can ill afford such
> short-sighted and narrow-minded
> : practice.
> :
> : (3) ANSWER did not turn out many volunteers to
> provide for fundraising,
> : security and media operations for the March and
> Rally. UFPJ was also
> : short of volunteers, but the much smaller numbers
> from ANSWER meant that
> : many of the practical burdens of attending to the
> needs of the crowd
> : fell on UFPJ, while ANSWER concentrated its
> attention on extending the
> : time their speakers were on the stage.
> :
> : In our view, it was because we had insisted
> (against ANSWER's
> : objections) that the terms of our agreement be
> made public; and through
> : the costly expenditure of time and energy to deal
> with one issue after
> : another in the weeks just before September 24,
> that additional problems
> : were avoided. However, the interactions required
> to accomplish this were
> : tremendously difficult and stressful, taking a
> major human toll on the
> : UFPJ representatives participating in meetings
> with ANSWER. UFPJ has
> : made our share of mistakes and no doubt some of us
> may have made
> : intemperate and inappropriate remarks in the heat
> of political
> : difficulty. We also see that while our agreement
> with ANSWER did not
> : require us to do so, the fact that we did not
> inform them about the
> : plans to include speakers during the late
> afternoon/evening concert
> : might have contributed to the tension. But the
> souring of the political
> : atmosphere is largely due to ANSWER, which, in our
> experience,
> : consistently substitutes labels ("racist",
> "anti-unity") and
> : mischaracterization of others' views for
> substantive political debate or
> : problem solving - both in written polemics and
> direct face-to-face
> : interactions.
> :
> : Beyond all this, the priority given to negotiating
> and then trying to
> : carry out an agreement with ANSWER hurt rather
> than helped galvanize the
> : participation of many other groups and individuals
> in the September 24
> : activities. In part this is simply a question of
> where time and
> : resources were directed. But it also stems from
> the bridges ANSWER has
> : burned over the years with other broader forces in
> the progressive
> : movement. Many longtime antiwar and social
> movement activists - and many
> : groups only recently embracing mass action against
> the war - have had
> : the same kind of negative experiences with ANSWER
> that we did in the
> : run-up to, and on September 24. Some people, and
> some UFPJ member
> : groups, believe this stems from ANSWER's political
> and strategic
> : perspectives. Others attribute the problems to
> what is often called
> : style of work, or to issues about democracy,
> decision making and
> : control. Whatever the case on this level,
> co-sponsorship with ANSWER on
> : September 24 was welcomed by some in the antiwar
> movement but limited or
> : prevented completely the participation of others.
> :
> : This is not surprising: "unity in the movement"
> doesn't happen in the
> : abstract. Especially when up-close coordination is
> involved, unity takes
> : place between specifics groups and individuals,
> and choices to work in
> : close cooperation with certain groups with certain
> approaches
> : simultaneously means choosing not to work in the
> same fashion with other
> : groups. Of course we all dream of a situation
> where everyone gets
> : together as one cooperative movement family. But
> we still must deal with
> : politics as they are, not as we wish them to be.
> Sometimes it is
> : necessary for groups with extremely bitter
> relations to cooperate for a
> : common aim. But there are many circumstances when
> effective movement
> : building and the long-range process of developing
> unity is better served
> : by different groups pursuing different courses,
> until conditions change
> : or the groups themselves evolve and transform.
> :
> : In terms of UFPJ's relationship with ANSWER, our
> national steering
> : committee has concluded that the latter path is
> best for the foreseeable
> : future. We did not have consensus. But by a more
> than two thirds
> : supermajority we voted on December 4 not to
> coordinate work with ANSWER
> : again on a national level. We simultaneously
> recognized that other
> : settings and situations may be different. We make
> no recommendations or
> : mandates on this issue to UFPJ member groups in
> local or
> : constituency-based areas, who will continue to
> decide whether and/or how
> : much to coordinate efforts with ANSWER based on
> their own experiences,
> : conditions and judgments.
> :
> : The tasks in front of the anti-Iraq war movement
> and all of us who are
> : struggling for peace and justice are immense. Yet
> this is a moment of
> : great opportunity, as popular anger at Bush's wars
> against people abroad
> : and at home grows, and as an expanding number of
> organizations - many
> : with massive constituencies among poor, working
> and oppressed peoples -
> : are willing to consider taking up aggressive
> protest mobilizations.
> : United for Peace and Justice will redouble our
> efforts to push forward
> : the antiwar movement and to bring the broadest and
> most diverse array of
> : people and groups into the struggle for peace and
> justice.
> :
> :
> :
> :
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> 
> : _______________________________________________
> : UFPJ mailing list
> :
> : Post: UFPJ at lists.mayfirst.org
> : List info:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj
> :
> : To Unsubscribe
> : Send email to: 
> UFPJ-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> : Or visit:
>
https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj/recotton%40earthlink.net
> :
> : You are subscribed as: recotton at earthlink.net
> :
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 