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

Fri Dec 16 20:11:34 CST 2005

This is a one-sided portrayal. It would be good to have a statement  
from ANSWER.
However, this turmoil and conflict is not helpful. UFPJ seems to be  
overplaying its hand. The disparagement of ANSWER is unhelpful and  
does not enhance UFPJ. I guess I agree with you, but I  don't have  
the discutable actual facts.   --mort

On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss