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

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I think this is a dispute that shouldn't detain us.  Largely
because of their experience in organizing demonstrations,
virtual and real, various rather hoary New Left sects animate
the anti-war coalitions, and those coalitions' differences
represent the long-standing differences among those sects. 
About the only place Leninism exists any more is in the
organizing committees of ANSWER, UFPJ, Not in My Name, etc.
(And it seems to have sprouted up anew -- perhaps not
surprisingly -- among the Greens.)  Here's an assessment
(which largely ignores that issue) from the interesting blog
"left i on the news." --CGE]


A.N.S.W.E.R. vs. UfPJ

Many of my readers are activists, or at the very least
participants, in the antiwar movement. Some of you may be
aware, and others not, that new infighting has broken out in
the movement. Some people may have seen the "discussion" from
one perspective, others from another, so in the interest of
making sure everyone has all the same information available to
them, I'll point you to both of the key documents.

The first document, the opening shot in the latest "battle" in
an unfortunately ongoing war, was fired by United for Peace
and Justice (UfPJ) here
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3162>, in which
they announce that they would no longer work with ANSWER.
Yesterday, ANSWER released its response to this attack, which
is published here <http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=
ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=7433>.

I personally find it reprehensible that UfPJ continues to
reject the idea of a unified antiwar movement (not in the
sense of one organization, of course, but of unified actions),
at a time when Iraqis and Americans (and others) continue to
suffer the consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation of
Iraq (with Americans suffering both in Iraq and at home). But
I don't want to get into a long discussion over the central
issues of the split, questions such as what emphasis to place
on the oppression of the Palestinian people. I suspect most
readers have their own opinions on these questions, and if you
don't, the documents linked above have plenty to say without
me adding my $0.02.

I do want to add just two factual issues based on my own
personal knowledge. The first is to note this curious
paragraph in the UfPJ statement:

    "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."

Why is this curious? Because it was ANSWER, as you can see
here <http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=
ANS_S24index#flyers>, which changed its flyers in response to
Katrina (compare the original flyer on the right with the
later one on the left). The UfPJ flyer, on the other hand,
never changed (at least as far as anything I saw or what is
posted on their website). The point is, this is a completely
bogus issue; clearly, there wasn't the slightest disagreement
on putting a spotlight on Katrina and its implications on
Sept. 24. Why is UfPJ implying there was?

And the second issue, which is discussed in the ANSWER
response but to which I'd like to add my own words, are the
claims by UfPJ, which one can gather they are claiming is the
evidence of why they "just can't work with ANSWER," of various
problems on Sept. 24 itself - sections of the demonstration
going long, march not starting on time, and not enough ANSWER
volunteers. The first two charges are simply ludicrous to
anyone who has ever attended a demonstration. Demonstrations
are not Swiss trains! Things like that happen at every
demonstration. Get over it! They hardly indicate any nefarious
plot.

The third charge is equally absurd to anyone who has ever
attended an ANSWER demonstration. My own personal experiences
on Sept. 24 (and 23rd) are written up here. The number of
ANSWER volunteers, and the level of dedication (not to mention
the number of hours) they bring to the task is extraordinary.
I admit I don't have any recent experience with demonstrations
in Washington, D.C., having left the East Coast and Washington
demos years ago. But I find it hard to believe (and the ANSWER
document backs this up) that there is that much difference
between what happens there and what happens here in Northern
California. Indeed, one of the notable things about
demonstrations here is that, while other organizations are
able to make an impression at demonstrations by marching in a
large contingent, ANSWER itself is never able to do that,
since its volunteers are busy doing all the work - building
the setting up and taking down the platforms and banners,
providing security, collecting money, staffing tables, etc.,
etc. All that is over and above the work done in the days,
weeks, and months before the demonstration.

I think you can see my conclusion. I view the actual charges
made by UfPJ as specious in the extreme, and conclude they are
merely a cover to disguise the fact that they are really doing
what they are doing (dividing the movement) for political
reasons, reasons which they refuse to discuss and debate
publicly. Worth remembering is that UfPJ took precisely this
stand (opposed to unity in action) prior to Sept. 24, until
the movement pressured them into changing. And one of the most
curious claims in the UfPJ statement is this: "Co-sponsorship
with ANSWER on September 24 was welcomed by some in the
antiwar movement but limited or prevented completely the
participation of others." Curiously, no evidence is provided
to back up that last claim; not one group is cited who refused
to participate in the events of Sept. 24 because of ANSWER's
co-sponsorship. Undoubtedly, though, such people or groups do
exist. And, as a commentary on such people and groups, I refer
you back to a post (and a Nation article) entitled "The Fear
of the Liberals," in which the author notes that the same sort
of people who worry about being associated with ANSWER are
often the same people who have no fear of associating with the
U.S. government by supporting its war against Afghanistan (or
Yugoslavia, or the first war against Iraq, or the decade of
murderous sanctions against Iraq, for that matter). Curious,
that.   

http://lefti.blogspot.com/