[Peace-discuss] The anti-war movement and UFPJ

[Morton K. Brussel]

Worth reading, well considered, especially if going to the 9/24  
protest in D.C.
--mkb



Interviewing Cagan

by Leslie Cagan and Ethan Young; Portside; September 17, 2005
[Leslie Cagan is national coordinator of United for Peace and  
Justice, a coalition of more than 1,300 local and national groups  
that have "joined together to oppose our government's policy of  
permanent warfare and empire- building." (http:// 
www.unitedforpeace.org/) Leslie was interviewed for portside on  
September 9, 2005, by Ethan Young. -- ps moderator]

PORTSIDE: Since the federal funding shift from disaster response to  
the war was largely responsible for the failure to save the hurricane  
victims, how would you see the anti-war movement addressing the Gulf  
Coast crisis, and do you think it will affect which communities will  
turn out September 24th?

LESLIE CAGAN: The whole situation in the Gulf Coast raises a complex  
set of questions. United for Peace and Justice believes that the  
incredible resources--over two hundred billion dollars already--that  
have been poured into the war in Iraq meant that money wasn't going  
into very necessary things, like making New Orleans more secure. And  
yet it is too simplistic to just say that the war and the money  
that's gone into the war was the reason that there was a failure to  
provide the victims of the hurricane with the relief that they've  
needed. While the drain of resources into the war is an important  
issue, it is also true that centuries of racism in this country, the  
fact that there were so many poor people in New Orleans that didn't  
have a way out, the lack of attention to real disaster management  
planning ... all of these were issues that fed what happened on the  
Gulf Coast.

United for Peace and Justice is trying to articulate the connections  
between the war and the crisis in the aftermath of Katrina, without  
reducing it all to a simplistic statement like, "If the war wasn't  
happening then everything would have been fine in New Orleans." We  
don't think that is true.

One of the things that we've been talking about--some of the language  
we've been using--is that this country is now at one of those  
defining moments. It's not an everyday occurrence, where the country-- 
the nation--is at a crossroads. We have an opportunity here to really  
think through what the priorities of this country are. Are the  
priorities going to be what they've been for decades now: an empire- 
building agenda that pours our resources--not just money, but people  
power, scientific and creative energies and people -- into military  
operations such as the war in Iraq? Or are our priorities going to be  
really meeting the needs of our own people, and other people around  
the world? And the combination--the juxtaposition--of the war in Iraq  
and the Gulf Coast crisis happening at exactly the same time sheds  
light on what kind of choices this nation faces.

As an anti-war movement we are saying that the choice should be  
clear: not only do we have to end the war in Iraq, but we have to  
change foreign policies that continue to lead us into these kinds of  
wars and military interventions and occupations.

I think it's not totally clear yet how this will affect the turnout  
for the Sept. 24th march on Washington. I believe a lot more people  
are going to come out because of the Gulf Coast crisis, partially  
because they do understand how essential this priorities question is  
and how our resources get used. There was a lot of momentum building  
for the 24th demonstration even before Hurricane Katrina hit and  
there were already signs that this was going to be a big  
demonstration, which I think is now going to be larger. We're hoping  
that constituencies, communities, that have not in the past come out  
to anti-war demonstrations are going to come precisely because they  
do see a connection. But I really can't guarantee any of that. That's  
what we're working on -- reaching out to people that might have been  
questioning the war before, and even been opposed to the war, but  
haven't been actively engaged, and now encourging them to come out to  
this anti-war mobilization.

Q. Well, vets and military families have brought new energy to the  
movement, but they're culturally far apart from the students and  
boomers who usually make it to big peace marches. Do you foresee  
problems in bringing military families together with traditional  
peaceniks?

LESLIE CAGAN: It's interesting that in the last three years, since  
this anti-war movement came together, military families and veterans  
have been part of it and their voices have been heard right from the  
very beginning. In fact, I remember a few days before the February  
15th (2003) demonstration, the massive global day of protest, two  
people came into our office and said, "We're Nancy Lessin and Charlie  
Richardson and we just started, with another family, Military  
Families Speak Out." And now, two and half years later, there are  
more than 2500 families in Military Families Speak Out, many more  
people but over 2500 families. I know with the national media  
attention that Cindy Sheehan got at Camp Casey in Texas many more  
people have been joining Military Families. The main point, though,  
is that veterans and military families have been a part of this  
movement from the beginning, and, in fact, a movement is a movement  
because there are people from different cultural traditions, from  
different age groups, from different constituencies, from different  
lifestyles if you will. In fact, that's when you have a movement:  
it's not just one grouping or one category of people. And sometimes  
that's uneasy, sometimes that's difficult, as relationships are  
difficult. But mostly I think that people understand that whatever  
ways people are different, our common commitment to ending the war in  
Iraq and challenging US foreign policy more broadly, ties us together  
much more strongly than what keeps us apart. Yes, sometimes there are  
differences in language that people want to use, or images that  
people want to use--graphics for leaflets and things like that--but I  
think those issues are pretty minor compared to what holds this  
movement together.

PORTSIDE: Some anti-war groups and individuals think that UFPJ holds  
back on the demand for immediate withdrawal or on expressing support  
for the insurgency. Some have called for the inclusion of Palestine  
as part of the focus alongside Iraq, and we can see that that's not  
happening. Is UFPJ trading principle for mainstream acceptability?

LESLIE CAGAN: Let me deconstruct this question. There's a lot going  
on in this question, so let me try to deconstruct it a little.

First of all, if there's anybody or any grouping of people that  
thinks UFPJ has backed off of what has been our essential demand --  
which has been: end the war in Iraq, bring the troops home now --  
then I don't know what planet they've been on. There is not a piece  
of literature, there is not a press release, there is not a  
communication that we put out that doesn't say that. If anybody  
thinks we've backed off, I'd like to see what leads them to this  
conclusion. I'd like to see where they're getting that from. The  
answer to this question is: No. We have not changed our demand. The  
demand before the war started was: Don't go to war. But the minute  
the war started, our demand was: End the war in Iraq and bring the  
troops home now. We have consistently held that position and not  
wavered from it, and have no plans to waver from it. That's our  
position, and I hope I have cleared up any confusion.

On the question of expressing support for the insurgency, UFPJ as a  
coalition does not have a position on the resistance or the  
insurgency--people refer to what's happening in different ways. There  
are members of our coalition--member groups--that support the  
resistance. There are other groups that condemn the insurgency. But  
as a coalition we don't have a position. I think there are two  
general positions within the coalition that relate to this that are  
important to mention. One is that there's a generally held agreement  
that we support the rights of people to protect and defend their  
nations. We believe that one of the pillars of US foreign policy  
should be respect for the sovereignty of independent nations. And we  
also support the right of people to defend themselves. When people  
are being attacked militarily or otherwise, they have a right to  
figure out how they are going to defend themselves. So that's a broad  
principle. The other broad principle is that we reject and condemn  
terrorism in any form, whether it comes from individuals,  
paramilitary groups or governments. We condemn the terrorism that's  
part of US military policies. By terrorism we mean acts of violence  
against individuals, against civilians. That's not a tactic that we  
support or condone.

But those are broad, general positions of the coalition. We don't at  
United for Peace and Justice have a position supporting or  
condemning, either way, the insurgency or the resistance in Iraq.

In terms of the call to include the demand to end the Israeli  
occupation of Palestine and to support the rights of Palestinian  
people as a central focus of September 24th, we have articulated our  
position that we believe this demonstration, and the focus of our  
work as United for Peace and Justice, needs to be on ending the war  
in Iraq. Yes, we do see the connection between the occupation of Iraq  
and the occupation of the Palestinian territories. We call for an end  
to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and more particular we call  
for an end to the US government support for the Israeli government's  
occupation. But having that as a principled position is different  
than a tactical position about how you focus a demonstration. For a  
variety of reasons, we came to the conclusion that it was time to  
organize a national massive march on Washington that focuses on  
Iraq.  Through the course of doing that work, and through the course  
of the demonstration, the connections will be made. There will be a  
contingent specifically around issues of supporting the rights of  
Palestinian people; there will be speakers that address the issue;  
there will be a booth at the Peace and Justice Festival that we are  
organizing. So it's not, as some would claim, that we're ignoring the  
issue. The challenge we see is how do we help people who are coming  
out and becoming involved for the first time--many for the first  
time--because they are moved by their opposition to the war in Iraq,  
how do we work with these people to help them see connections, not  
only to Palestine, but to a host of other issues. And within our  
movement there's a lot of different tactical ... people have  
different tactical approaches. So, it's not like we don't think the  
issue is important or that we as a coalition don't have a role to  
play in addressing this issue. It's a question of how we organize a  
mass demonstration and how we use that as an opportunity to make  
connections and, hopefully, through that work, help people see what  
these connections are. So finally, then, is this coalition trading  
principle for mainstream acceptability? No. We have not compromised  
on, or backed away from, any of our positions. Our principles are  
still very much intact, and, we believe that in fact at this point-- 
certainly on the war in Iraq--that that is the mainstream position,  
that it is the Bush Administration that's out on the fringe on this  
one. Over the last several months public opinion polls show  
increasing numbers of people in this country against the war,  
questioning the war, disagreeing with the war--whatever language  
people are using--but there's more and more opposition to the war.

We believe this is the majority sentiment in the country, and that  
you can win over massive numbers of people without compromising  
principle. So, again, I think tactical decisions are different from  
principle decisions.

PORTSIDE: The majority of elected Democrats seem to support the war.  
Which is more important: targeting the war or targeting the  
Administration conducting the war?

LESLIE CAGAN: I don't think it's an either-or question. First of all,  
on the question of the elected Democrats, who seem to support the  
war. Many of them not only seem to, they actually do. It's not just  
an image problem; their positions are horrendous. In fact, we really  
are quite critical of the leadership of the Democratic Party and most  
elected officials on the federal level from whatever party they  
happen to be in, because certainly those in Congress have partnered  
with the Bush Administration on this war. If Congress hadn't been  
feeding the money into this war it couldn't have happened. Part of  
the reason that we decided to do this massive demonstration at the  
end of September in Washington was so we could send a message  
directly to Congress and when we say Congress we mean not only the  
Republicans, but also the Democrats and hold them accountable and  
demand that they take some responsibility for doing whatever they can  
to stop this war and bring the troops home. So we think that it's not  
actually a question of deciding which is more important--targeting  
the war or the Administration--the war is bad, there are policy  
makers that have put that war into place and keep that war machinery  
going, and some of them are in the Bush Administration, some of them  
are in Congress, some are in the State Department, some are in the  
Pentagon--you know they're in lots of different places. We call on  
all of them, we make a demand on all of them, to end this war and  
bring the troops home now.

PORTSIDE: Some in the anti-war movement are calling for a planned,  
multi-staged pullout as a more mainstream alternative to "Out Now."  
There's also some nervousness about the left wing of the peace  
movement against maximalist slogans--I think you know what I mean by  
that: civil disobedience. What's your response?

LESLIE CAGAN: I think it's interesting that some members of Congress  
are beginning to talk about staged withdrawals, setting time lines,  
looking to 2006, etc. We think this is a positive development -- that  
there's even that kind of discussion going on in Congress. You know,  
six months ago, a year ago, there wasn't that level of discussion.  
That's not our position. The position of United for Peace and Justice  
is: End the war and bring the troops home now. We encourage all  
groups and organizations and activists in the anti-war movement to  
have the same position. And we think that some members of Congress,  
and others who shape policy are beginning to talk about things like  
phased withdrawal, stages of a pullout, etc., because there has been  
the call from the anti-war movement saying "End the war now." We are  
holding firm on that. Other people are going to raise other  
approaches as to how the war can end. Our approach has not changed  
though. Again, this is a war that never should have happened. It's a  
war based on lies. And how do you get out of the mess that you've  
created? You get out by getting out. It's not too complicated. And,  
obviously, in 24 hours, every US troop wouldn't be out of Iraq and  
every Hummer and all of the equipment and everything else wouldn't be  
out of there, but you make that declaration. "We're leaving. It's  
over." That's what we think should happen. Other people, including  
some members of Congress, may take other positions. That's good in  
that it helps open up more room for more debate, but we don't support  
those positions. Our position is: End the war. Bring the troops home  
now.

And...the other part of the question: nervousness about the left  
wing. You know, what can we say? A movement is a movement because  
there are people active in it from many constituencies and different  
parts of the country, different age groups,etc. People have come from  
different political traditions, and different ideologies and  
different ways of thinking about the world. If we all shared one set  
of politics, we'd all be in an organization not in a coalition. UFPJ  
is a coalition, and we know we're only one part of a bigger movement.  
So, yes, there's going to be a left wing in the movement, and there's  
going to be more centerist forces. We hope there's even more people  
from the Republican Party speaking out against the war. But I don't  
think people need to be nervous about the left wing in the peace  
movement. We should be happy that the movement is big enough so that  
it can accommodate many different voices and points of view and build  
on the ideas that we do share in common, that is, ending this war. In  
terms of civil disobedience, well, I'm actually surprised by-- not  
surprised but I think it's noticeable--how little objection there is  
to civil disobedience. It's not that everybody wants to engage in cd  
actions, but I've not heard anybody say, for instance during the  
September actions in Washington on that Monday, the 26th, we're  
organizing a non-violent civil disobedience action at the White  
House. Nobody has said to us, "You really shouldn't be doing that.  
That's a bad thing for the movement." Not everybody's going to  
participate in it, but I think people understand that it's a part of  
our toolbox, one of the tools that every movement for change, for  
peace and justice uses it and we will continue to use it more and more.

PORTSIDE: The reason that these questions have a special pertinence  
right now is that, as you said in your answer to the first question,  
there's likely to be a bigger outpouring, probably with lots of  
people who have never gone to a demonstration like this before, as a  
result of the last few weeks, and that raises the ultimate question,  
which is: What comes after September 24th?

LESLIE CAGAN: We are thinking about that now. It's always important  
to be thinking about what's coming down the road in the next few  
months, next year. And when you have such a large number of people  
gathering it's important for people to come away with some ideas of  
what comes next, where they're going, what they're being encouraged  
to work on. A lot of the creative thinking in a movement like this  
comes from the grassroots, comes from people in their own communities  
out there every day organizing, talking to people, facing those  
challenges. They often come up with the most creative ideas. As a  
national coalition, we'll be calling on people to go right back home  
and in the two weeks until October 8 to do local actions against the  
war. We think it's very important to keep the momentum going and a  
movement, as I said, is not only made up of many types of people who  
use different tactics, it's also made up not just of national  
demonstrations, but really the heart and soul of a movement like this  
is what people do in their own communities, their schools, their work  
places, religious institutions, in all the places that people gather  
at the local level. So we hope that the mobilization in Washington  
will strengthen the local work, and we're calling on people to turn  
around and go right back home and do local actions. And the focus of  
those actions we hope will be on really identifying and articulating  
what we call the "local costs of the war." The most extreme example  
of this, of course, is the situation in the Gulf Coast. But there are  
many other examples too. The fact that National Guardspeople have  
been pulled from states all around the country has tremendous local  
consequences. I think it was a few months ago the governor of Oregon  
was saying he was very concerned that as the summer was approaching  
and there were so many National Guard people not there, what would  
they do if they had really terrible forest fires this summer and not  
have enough National Guardspeople to help with that?
A lot of the first responders from communities all around the country  
are tied up in this war. That's another example of local costs of the  
war, to say nothing of not having enough money for schools and  
hospitals and libraries and day care and everything else. So the  
focus of the October 8th demonstrations and activities, protests,  
will be on the local costs of the war.

The other thing is that we're asking people to keep their eyes open  
for what is bound to happen sooner rather than later, and that is  
when the 2,000 US service person dies, we're now inching very close  
to the 1,900 mark, and sometime within the next weeks or months,  
we'll hit the 2,000 mark, and we think that should be another moment  
when people are very visible and vocal in their opposition to the  
war. The Congressional work will go on, the work on counter- 
recruitment efforts will go on. We are going to be calling on clergy  
people all around the country and people from every religious  
tradition to use the weekend of November 11--Veteran's Day Weekend-- 
to do religious services and sermons to talk about the war, to raise  
the question: Why is there another generation of veterans? When are  
we going to stop creating more veterans? Those are some of the things  
that we're projecting into the fall. A lot of this is about going  
back home. Take your energy, take the spirit and the enthusiasm that  
we know we'll see on the streets of Washington and take that back  
home into your communities, into your localities and mobilize people.  
Keep expanding this movement and keep the pressure on.

_______________________________________________________

portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion  
and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy  
and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to  
people on the left.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050920/bf28bf37/attachment-0001.html