[Peace-discuss] ISO Statement on Oct. 27
martin smith
send2smith at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 10 10:04:32 CDT 2007
Statement of the Chicago International Socialist Organization on the
Chicago October 27th
regional antiwar demonstration
Mass protests are desperately needed to galvanize a growing antiwar
majority to end the
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. More than four years into the
occupation of Iraq,
upwards of 27,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded and more than 3,700
have been
killed. One million Iraqis have died.
It is the hope of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) that
the October 27th
United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) regional demonstration in Chicago
will bring out large
numbers against this barbaric war. The ISO certainly intends to
mobilize and build for the
protest.
Two incompatible political agendas
However, it is quite clear that there will be two incompatible
political agendas present on
October 27. On the one hand, people from the various endorsing
organizations and
beyond will be present to voice their opposition to the war. Many have
worked tirelessly to
oppose the war.
On the other hand, Democratic Party politicians who have repeatedly
proven their
fidelity to the Iraq War have been invited to speak. This has become
an even greater
problem, as the dominant forces in the leadership of the Democratic
Party prepare, not to
end the war, but to "take it over" from the Bush Administration after
the 2008 election.
These invitations only serve to direct the energies and anger of the
antiwar
movementonce againinto support for politicians who have no intention
of ending the
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Withdrawing our endorsement
It has long been the ISO's policy to support any genuine antiwar
protest. Nor do we
oppose inviting politicians to speak if they have shown themselves to
oppose the war,
whatever other, often very significant, disagreements we may have with
them.
From the beginning, however, we have had serious concerns about the
way in which
the local October 27th antiwar demonstration had been organized. We
were told we could
participate in organizing only if we did not raise any meaningful
disagreements. We, of
course, decided that we could not accept those limitations and have
not participated in the
organizing meetings. Nevertheless, we eventually decided to endorse
the event and
mobilize for it.
While we intend to build and mobilize for the protest, we must
withdraw our
endorsement of the Chicago demonstration.
This protest has been organized in such a way as to freeze out left-wing
organizations and individuals, under the false assumption that the
left or slogans around
issues such as Palestine or Afghanistan have "frightened" away
ordinary people in past
Chicago protests. This is an elitist approach and a false assessment
of many past protests
organized successfully, in part, by the left.
The problem with Durbin, Obama and Daley
We are not in disagreement with the main demands of the protest,
though we would
have wanted them to reflect more opposition to broader issues of U.S.
imperialism in the
Middle East. The reason we are withdrawing our endorsement is because
of the invitations
extended to certain politicians to speak, especially senators Richard
Durbin and Barack
Obama.
Over the summer a number of antiwar protests were held at Senator
Richard Durbin's
Chicago offices, organized by groups such as the American Friends
Service Committee,
Voices for Creative Nonviolence and the Campus Antiwar Network, among
others. These
protests included sit-ins, and some included non-violent civil
disobedience and arrests.
Unmoved by these actions or the seventy percent of the state that
opposes the war,
Dick Durbin voted once again to fund the occupation on September
27and again on
October 1along with the vast majority of the Senate.
Barack Obama could not be bothered to show up for that vote. However,
there should
be little doubt at this point as to where the junior senator's
sympathies lie. At the
Democratic primary debate on September 25, Obama, Hillary Clinton and
John Edwards all
refused to entertain the idea of a full withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2013.
Obama made his position regarding a promised pullout by January 2013
clear; "I
think it would be irresponsible. " This is not to mention Obama's
saber rattling against Iran
and Pakistan, or his "senatorial" support for Israel's crimes against
Palestine.
Earlier in the year, even mainstream Democratic Party politicians took
a more
oppositional stand around the war. However, with the 2008 elections
approaching, more
and more politicians are not appealing so much to antiwar voters, but
to the
establishment, trying to prove they will be "responsible"
administrators of the war itself.
It is unconscionable to invite as antiwar speakers those who continue
to fund the
war, and those who publicly plan to continue the war for years.
Also worthy of criticism is the speaking invitation for our
"illustrious" mayor. Putting
aside his pursuit of rampant gentrification, complicity in countless
cases of police brutality
or his large role in covering-up the Jon Burge torture ring, Richard
Daley has proven he is
no friend of the antiwar movement.
As bombs fell on Iraq in 2003, it was Daley's police department that
arrested
hundreds of peaceful antiwar activists. Under Daley, the Chicago
Public Schools (CPS)
became the most militarized in the nation. It was Daley's cronies in
the CPS that installed a
naval academy at Senn High School over the protests and opposition of
students, faculty
and community members.
No matter how many antiwar resolutions Daley's city council might
passand such
resolutions are welcomethese students are to be used as the occupiers
and cannon
fodder of Bush's wars.
An uncritical approach to these pro-war politicians politically
disarms the antiwar
movement. The Illinois senators have made it quite clear that they are
not against the war.
They may mouth criticisms and may at times vaguely speak of
withdrawing "combat
troops" at some future date. But this will not bring the war to an
endand Obama and
Durbin have proven it with their actions over the past two weeks.
Their empty promises mirror the countless and never-materialized
withdrawal
schemes hatched during the Vietnam War. That war did not end until a
confluence of
resistance in Vietnam met mass antiwar protests in the United States,
which in turn gave
confidence and support to a wave of antiwar activity in the armed
forces itself.
That can be built today, but Durbin and Obama are not allies in that
project. Instead,
they have proven themselves to be obstacles.
Don't boycott
At the same time, we believe it would be mistaken, as some have
argued, to boycott
this protest. The vast majority of organizations and individuals who
will attend this
demonstration are antiwar. They are open to discussing a different
strategy to ending the
war, and a discussion of why a strategy of courting warmongersin
whatever partisan
clothingis a strategy doomed to failure.
Instead, antiwar individuals and organizations need to mobilize all
the more, to begin
to organize opposition to this war in a different wayone that is open
to the left, and one
that does not rely on Democratic Party politicians who continue to
enable the war.
Instead of inviting them to speak for us, the antiwar movement must
hold Durbin,
Obama and Daley accountable for their complicity in the murder of one
million Iraqis and
nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071010/5229e0d7/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list