[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[C. G. Estabrook]

It seems to me that the ISO people have got this right. I posted a while 
ago (to some dismay among our colleagues) Alex Cockburn's comment that 
"the mainstream anti-war movement, as represented by UFPJ, is captive to 
the Democratic Party."  That seems borne out by the Oct. 27 demo.  --CGE

martin smith wrote:
> 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 movement -— once
> again -- into 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 27 —- and again on 
> October 1 —- along 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 pass -— and such
> resolutions are welcome —- these 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 end —- and 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 warmongers -— in whatever
> partisan clothing -— is 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 way -— one 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.
 >
 > 	###