[Peace-discuss] Almost anti-war...

[C. G. Estabrook]

Actually, I think the piece exculpates UFPJ and condemns (properly  I 
think) MoveOn.org.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> The UFPJ statement seems unobjectionable, except possibly their PC  shot 
> against nuclear reactors. However, they should have explained--- if it's 
> true---why there was no mention of Iran in connection with  announcement 
> of the 4/29 demo in NYC. Bracketing MoveOn.org and UFPJ  together is 
> nastiness IMHO.
> 
> Carl, I don't see hesitancy, or subversion in the UFPJ statement.  
> Perhaps I'm lacking imagination. I think the author of this piece is  
> too hung up on seeing a "cover" for Democrats where they don't  
> necessarily exist.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:44 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> [Hesitancy at best (subversion at worst) in the anti-war movement  is 
>> described by <http://amleft.blogspot.com/>.  --CGE]
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, I observed how United for Peace and Justice was  
>> sponsoring a major antiwar rally without mentioning Iran. On  Friday, 
>> I received an e-mail message from UFPJ, as did many others.  It 
>> explained UFPJ's position on the proposed war against Iran, as  set 
>> forth on the UFPJ website:
>>
>>     "United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action  against 
>> Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions. We reject the  doctrine 
>> of 'preventive war.'  All diplomatic solutions must be  pursued.
>>
>>     "Send a clear message to the Bush Administration: Don't Attack  
>> Iran! As a first and immediate step, we urge you to add your  
>> signature and comments to AfterDowningStreet's petition to  President 
>> Bush and Vice-President Cheney opposing an attack on Iran.
>>
>>     "Many UFPJ member groups, including AfterDowningStreet, Gold  Star 
>> Families for Peace, CodePINK: Women for Peace, Progressive  Democrats 
>> of America, Democracy Rising, and others, are all  promoting this 
>> petition. UFPJ encourages you to circulate this  message and help 
>> expand the growing list of signers.
>>
>>     "Efforts to resolve any dispute with Iran should include  
>> promoting negotiations –- including Israel –- on a Weapons of Mass  
>> Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. We call for the global  
>> elimination of nuclear weapons. The United States should stop  
>> blocking negotiations on abolition and demonstrate leadership by  
>> taking steps to fulfill its own nuclear disarmament obligation. We  
>> call for the development and promotion of sustainable energy  
>> alternatives. We need to stop going to war for oil. And we need to  
>> address climate change. But nuclear power is not the answer: Every  
>> nuclear power plant is a potential bomb factory and a source of  
>> radioactive waste that will remain deadly forever. Additional Iran  
>> resources and action items will be available shortly on the UFPJ  
>> website. And, be sure to join us in New York on April 29 in the  
>> national March for Peace, Justice and Democracy."
>>
>> And, UFPJ confronts some of the underlying assumptions that are  used 
>> to justify a "preemptive attack":
>>
>>     "An attack on Iran would be an act of aggression, barred by the  
>> UN Charter and prosecuted at Nuremberg. If executed, U.S. military  
>> action would apply the Bush doctrine of 'preventive' war in an  
>> unprecedented way that would set the template for years or decades  of 
>> regional and global violence, unrestrained by law. U.S. use of  
>> nuclear weapons against Iran would be an atrocious act violating  the 
>> existing near taboo that has held since the U.S. devastation of  
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That would in turn make it far more likely  
>> that the weapons will be used elsewhere as well -- including  against 
>> cities in the U.S.
>>
>>     "While Washington accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under  
>> cover of a civilian nuclear power program, in violation of its  
>> obligations as a non-nuclear nation under the Nuclear  
>> Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. is itself in blatant  
>> violation of its own NPT obligation to eliminate its vast and  
>> sophisticated nuclear arsenal. There is no evidence that Iran has a  
>> nuclear weapons program. The U.S., however, retains a nuclear  arsenal 
>> of more than 10,000 weapons, some 2,000 on hair-trigger  alert. With 
>> nearly 500 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in 6 NATO  countries, the 
>> U.S. is the only country with nuclear weapons  deployed on foreign 
>> soil. And the U.S. is modernizing its existing  nuclear weapons and 
>> publicly making plans to develop and produce  new ones."
>>
>> Meanwhile, as Norman Solomon observes, MoveOn.org remains unwilling  
>> to oppose anything other than a nuclear attack. Here's the weak  
>> response that Solomon received when he inquired about it:
>>
>>     "A response came on April 13 from Eli Pariser, executive  director 
>> of MoveOn. Here is his three-paragraph reply in its entirety:
>>
>>     'As you know, our focus is on bringing people together around  
>> points of consensus. We build our advocacy agenda through dialogue  
>> with our members. Since we haven’t done any work around Iran thus  
>> far, we saw the prospect of a nuclear attack as a good way to begin  
>> that conversation -- something everyone can agree was nuts.
>>
>>     'As I mention in the ["Don’t Nuke Iran"] email, a conventional  
>> attack poses many of the same risks as a nuclear one. But just as  our 
>> Iraq campaign started with a position that attracted a broad  
>> membership -- "Ask Tough Questions," in August 2002 -- and then  
>> escalated, so we’re trying here to engage folks beyond the "peace"  
>> community in a national discussion about the consequences of war.
>>
>>     'We wouldn’t have had the membership to be able to run ads  
>> calling for an Iraq exit today if we’d confined our Iraq campaign  to 
>> the true believers from the very beginning.'”
>>
>> In other words, MoveOn.org had to wait until thousands more Iraqis  
>> were killed, thousands more detained and tortured, while corporados  
>> associated with the Bush Administration looted the country for  
>> billions before it could take a stand in support of ending the  
>> occupation, and should pursue a similarly ponderous discussion  about 
>> Iran without urgency. But such an analysis naively takes a  
>> disingenous reply at face value. Solomon asserts, probably  
>> accurately, that the overwhelming majority of MoveOn.org members  
>> oppose military action against Iran.
>>
>> So, what we really have here is the effort of the self-described  
>> MoveOn.org Political Action Team to stall, to avoid taking a  
>> principled stand, as a means of relieving pressure on congressional  
>> Democrats, until it can no longer be avoided, as they previously  did 
>> to evade an open declaration against the occupation. It was a  rather 
>> strange coincidence, they apparently came out against the  occupation 
>> as congressional Democrats began to openly consider a  phased 
>> withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, I can't even confidently say  when it 
>> happened, the announcement gently brushed the public  consciousness, 
>> most assuredly lacking the Zen-like prospect of  transformation 
>> associated with a butterfly moving its wings.
>>
>> Yet again, instead of providing leadership, the "action team" is  
>> actually an impediment, a barrier that MoveOn.org members must  
>> overcome to have their true opinion expressed. There is an old  
>> saying, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."  In 
>> this instance, we can more accurately say, "History repeats  itself, 
>> ever more ludicrously." People with even longer memories  about the 
>> mendacity of MoveOn.org recall how it created a safe  harbor for 
>> congressional Democrats before the Iraq war, by stating  that the war 
>> was wrong, unless authorized by a UN resolution.
>>
>> By doing so, MoveOn.org accomplished two critical objectives: (1)  
>> allowing congressional Democrats to support the war in the unlikely  
>> event that Bush obtained a UN resolution; and, more importantly,  (2) 
>> allowing congressional Democrats to engage in the hypocritical  
>> display of supporting the occupation as a purportedly grim  necessity 
>> while parading their pre-war credentials of opposition.  As already 
>> noted, MoveOn.org members eventually rebelled against  such 
>> transparently cynical politics, but it took a long time for  them to 
>> overcome the political manipulation of the "action team",  if they did 
>> so at all, given the yellow light of cautious approval  from 
>> congressional Democrats for a change in policy.
>>
>> Hence, with Iran, we hear the same nonsense, MoveOn.org needs to  
>> educate and consult. A national discusssion is needed. Nonsense,  
>> because MoveOn.org is clearly an organization run from the top  down, 
>> purveying the illusion of mass participation. Liberals love  to bash 
>> ANSWER as some kind of Maoist/Stalinist/Trotyskite  vanguardist 
>> organization (an organization with which I have had no  personal 
>> experience, being philosophically more of an anti- globalization, 
>> direct action type), but isn't it odd that they have  no problem with 
>> MoveOn.org, an organization that actually operates  consistent with 
>> such an approach? Meanwhile, let's hope that we  don't live through 
>> the entirety of an incomprehensibly violent war  in the Middle East, 
>> provoked by conventional airstrikes upon Iran,  before MoveOn.org 
>> completes the charade of a "national discussion".
>>
>>     ###