Behind the Placards: The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement

FREE MUMIA. FREE THE CUBAN 5. FREE JAMIL AL-AMIN (that’s H. Rap Brown, the former Black Panther convicted in March of killing a sheriff’s deputy in 2000). And free Leonard Peltier. Also, defeat Zionism. And, while we’re at it, let’s bring the capitalist system to a halt.

When tens of thousands of people gathered near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for an anti-war rally and march in Washington last Saturday, the demands hurled by the speakers extended far beyond the call for no war against Iraq. Opponents of the war can be heartened by the sight of people coming together in Washington and other cities for pre-emptive protests. But demonstrations such as these are not necessarily strategic advances, for the crowds are still relatively small and, more importantly, the message is designed by the far left for consumption by those already in their choir.

In a telling sign of the organizers’ priorities, the cause of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the taxi driver/radical journalist sentenced to death two decades ago for killing a policeman, drew greater attention than the idea that revived and unfettered weapons inspections should occur in Iraq before George W. Bush launches a war. Few of the dozens of speakers, if any, bothered suggesting a policy option regarding Saddam Hussein other than a simplistic leave-Iraq-alone. Jesse Jackson may have been the only major figure to acknowledge Saddam’s brutality, noting that the Iraqi dictator “should be held accountable for his crimes.” What to do about Iraq? Most speakers had nothing to say about that. Instead, the Washington rally was a pander fest for the hard left.

If public-opinion polls are correct, 33 percent to 40 percent of the public opposes an Iraq war; even more are against a unilateral action. This means the burgeoning anti-war movement has a large recruiting pool, yet the demo was not intended to persuade doubters. Nor did it speak to Americans who oppose the war but who don’t consider the United States a force of unequaled imperialist evil and who don’t yearn to smash global capitalism.

This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s “socialist system,” which, according to the party’s newspaper, has kept North Korea “from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.” The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”

It is not redbaiting to note the WWP’s not-too-hidden hand in the nascent anti-war movement. It explains the tone and message of Saturday’s rally. Take the question of inspections. According to Workers World, at a party conference in September, Sara Flounders, a WWP activist, reported war opponents were using the slogan “inspections, not war.” Flounders, the paper says, “pointed out that ‘inspections ARE war’ in another form,” and that she had “prepared party activists to struggle within the movement on this question.” Translation: The WWP would do whatever it could to smother the “inspections, not war” cry. Inspections-before-invasion is an effective argument against the dash to war. But it conflicts with WWP support for opponents of U.S. imperialism. At the Washington event, the WWP succeeded in blocking out that line — while promoting anti-war messages more simpatico with its dogma.

WWP shaped the demonstration’s content by loading the speakers’ list with its own people. None, though, were identified as belonging to the WWP. Larry Holmes, who emceed much of the rally from a stage dominated by ANSWER posters, was introduced as a representative of the ANSWER Steering Committee and the International Action Center. The audience was not told that he is also a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. When Leslie Feinberg spoke and accused Bush of concocting a war to cover up “the capitalist economic crisis,” she informed the crowd that she is “a Jewish revolutionary” dedicated to the “fight against Zionism.” When I asked her what groups she worked with, she replied that she was a “lesbian-gay-bi-transgender movement activist.” Yet a May issue of Workers World describes Feinberg as a “lesbian and transgendered communist and a managing editor of Workers World.” The WWP’s Sara Flounders, who urged the crowd to resist “colonial subjugation,” was presented as an IAC rep. Shortly after she spoke, Holmes introduced one of the event’s big-name speakers: Ramsey Clark. He declared that the Bush administration aims to “end the idea of individual freedom.”

Most of the protesters, I assume, were oblivious to the WWP’s role in the event. They merely wanted to gather with other foes of the war and express their collective opposition. They waved signs (“We need an Axis of Sanity,” “Draft Perle,” “Collateral Damage = Civilian Deaths,” “Fuck Bush”). They cheered on rappers who sang, “No blood for oil.” They laughed when Medea Benjamin, the head of Global Exchange, said, “We need to stop the testosterone-poisoning of our globe.” They filled red ANSWER donation buckets with coins and bills. But how might they have reacted if Holmes and his comrades had asked them to stand with Saddam, Milosevic and Kim? Or to oppose further inspections in Iraq?

One man in the crowd was wise to the behind-the-scenes politics. When Brian Becker, a WWP member introduced (of course) as an ANSWER activist, hit the stage, Paul Donahue, a middle-aged fellow who works with the Thomas Merton Peace and Social Justice Center in Pittsburgh, shouted, “Stalinist!” Donahue and his colleagues at the Merton Center, upset that WWP activists were in charge of this demonstration, had debated whether to attend. “Some of us tried to convince others to come,” Donahue recalled. “We figured we could dilute the [WWP] part of the message. But in the end most didn’t come. People were saying, ‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.” Rock singer Patti Smith, though, was not troubled by the organizers. “My main concern now is the anti-war movement,” she said before playing for the crowd. “I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.”

The WWP does have the shock troops and talent needed to construct a quasi mass demonstration. But the bodies have to come from elsewhere. So WWPers create fronts and trim their message, and anti-war Americans, who presumably don’t share WWP sentiments, have an opportunity to assemble and register their stand against the war. At the same time, WWP activists, hiding their true colors, gain a forum where thousands of people listen to their exhortations. Is this a good deal — or a dangerous one? Who’s using whom?

“Organizing against the silence is important,” Bob Borosage, executive director of Campaign for America’s Future, a leading progressive policy shop in Washington, said backstage at the rally: “This [rally] is easy to dismiss as the radical fringe, but it holds the potential for a larger movement down the road.” Borosage did add that the WWP “puts a slant on the speakers and that limits the appeal to others. But history shows that protests are organized first by militant, radical fringe parties and then get taken over by more centrist voices as the movement grows. They provide a vessel for people who want to protest.”

That’s the vessel-half-filled view. The other argument is that WWP’s involvement will prevent the anti-war movement from growing. Sure, the commies can rent buses and obtain parade permits, but if they have a say in the message, as they have had, the anti-war movement is going to have a tough time signing up non-lefties. When the organizers tried and failed to play a recorded message from Al-Amin, Lorena Stackpole, a 20-year-old New York University student, said, “This is not what I came for.” And an organizer for a non-revolutionary peace group that participated in the event remarked, “The rhetoric here is not useful if we want to expand.” After all, how does urging the release of Cubans accused of committing espionage in the United States — a pet project of the WWP — help draw more people into the anti-war movement? (In a similar reds-take-control situation, the “Not in My Name” campaign — which pushes an anti-war statement signed by scores of prominent and celebrity lefties, including Jane Fonda, Martin Luther King III, Marisa Tomei, Kurt Vonnegut and Oliver Stone — has been directed, in part, by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime Maoist activist and member of the Revolutionary Communist Party.)

Let’s be real: A Washington demonstration involving tens of thousands of people will not yield much political impact — especially when held while Congress is out of town and the relevant legislation has already been rubber-stamped. (The organizers claimed 200,000 showed, but that seemed a pumped-up guesstimate, perhaps three or four times the real number.) The anti-war movement won’t have a chance of applying pressure on the political system unless it becomes much larger and able to squeeze elected officials at home and in Washington.

To reach that stage, the new peace movement will need the involvement of labor unions and churches. That’s where the troops are — in the pews, in the union halls. How probable is it, though, that mainstream churches and unions will join a coalition led by the we-love-North-Korea set? Moreover, is it appropriate for groups and churches that care about human rights and worker rights abroad and at home to make common cause with those who champion socialist tyrants?

At the rally, speaker after speaker declared, “We are the real Americans.” But most “real Americans” do not see a direct connection between Mumia, the Cuban Five and the war against Iraq. Jackson, for one, exclaimed, “This time the silent majority is on our side.” If the goal is to bring the silent majority into the anti-war movement, it’s not going to be achieved by people carrying pictures of Kim Jong-Il — even if they keep them hidden in their wallets.

As yet another WWP-in-disguise speaker addressed the crowd, Steve Cobble, a progressive political consultant, gazed out at the swarm of protesters and observed, “People are looking for something to do.” Good for them. But they ought to also look at the leaders they are following and wonder if those individuals will guide them toward a broader, more effective movement or toward the fringe irrelevance the WWPers know so well.

During the depression there was a communist led group called the WOBBLIES that femented civic uprisings on the west coast docks and sawmills. Some of them died of lead poisoning here in Eureka. I do believe wobbly comes from World Workers Party of that era.

Having been somebody who grew up there, I can verify what you said. But I moved to Texas, and we don't love commies here.

But opposing unilateral attack on Iraq is NOT communist. It seems common sense to me, at least so far.

If there's truly a nation-state guily of 9-11, let's not just attack them with conventional weapons - let's make 'em a glass parking lot.

But let's see some PROOF.

I basically agree with your analysis okie. I too was dismayed by the attack against Serbia and felt that the motives were primarily political. I'm open to the suggestion, however, that there may have been a confluence of factors (which is often the case) such that clinton's political needs dovetailed nicely with other, geopolitical needs that may be harder to ferret out. Oil pipeline politics? Internal NATO politics? The interests of Bob Dole who had ethnic ties and had been pushing for the Kosovo cause for a fairly long time? Tony Blair was a passionate advocate for the Serbian war. Sure, Blair's a lefie, but it was not his ox being gored by impeachment. What was in it for him?

But, basically I agreed with your case at the time and still do. Look at all the lefties and dems in congress who are now so vehemently anti-war (Daschle, Biden, others) who were pounding the table and wanting to bomb Serbia back to the stoneage.

It sure was a strange, almost parallel universe time. The bombing of the Chinese embassy, and the excuse that it was due to old maps (when you could go to yahoo or mapsquest and see the embassy in its present location) was one of the weirdest episodes of the whole affair. You can never go wrong saying this, but I do think there is much we don't know about it all! I do know that the impeachment evidence that was in the Ford building is still under lock and key. Another weird episode was Bush 41's speech to 100 Senators in Executive Session, behind closed doors, asking them to spare clinton's sorry ass.

Nice post.

That all the anti-everything movements are not significant, that they are only butressed by the media; basically nobody cares what they have to say but CSPAN and CNN. They are so worthless that they drive people away from rational discussion to dismission. Wouldn't you agree??

OK, I'm going to hazard a guess that you are under, say 40, so would not have been paying much attention in the 1960's when the anti-war movement brought down two American presidents, led to a communist victory in Viet Nam, changed the course of history forever, and has impacted in a fundamental way American foreign policy and the perception of America both home and abroad for the past 30 years?

"The article tars everybody against an Iraqi war as in league with commie nutsacks like the WWP."

No. It most assuredly does not.

The article is specifically designed to separate the WWP nutballs from those who are against war on Iraq for more defensible reasons (as Corn himself is).

Corn is an anti-war leftist (The Nation magazine), who rightly wants no association with the WWP.

"Oil pipeline politics?"

Usually, so-called "oil pipeline politics" are resolved by identifying the politicians one must buy-off -- and doing a deal. There's no need to call out the cavalry when these matters can be handled, er, more quietly. The Kosovo War was an unnecessary venture, in these terms. Indeed, where is the pipeline that was to result?

"Internal NATO politics?"

There is something to this. NATO's panties were in a wad and there seems to have been a Euro-need to flex NATO's muscles, just to prove it was still relevant in the absence of a Cold War. I sense those who were pushing the venture in NATO, though, got somewhat more than they intended...

"The interests of Bob Dole who had ethnic ties and had been pushing for the Kosovo cause for a fairly long time?"

Dole certainly was in favor of action in Kosovo, having been bought and paid for by the Albania lobby some time past. But don't you rather doubt that the action would've been taken simply as a favor to Bob Dole?

"Tony Blair was a passionate advocate for the Serbian war. Sure, Blair's a lefie, but it was not his ox being gored by impeachment. What was in it for him?"

O.K. Now, you've got me. Though a lefty, I've always given Blair credit for some intelligence. I somehow can't believe that his kindred spirit, Bill, led him along by the nose. And Tony did seem to be a prime mover in all this, not necessarily "Bill's Man at NATO".

"Another weird episode was Bush 41's speech to 100 Senators in Executive Session, behind closed doors, asking them to spare clinton's sorry ass."

WHOA! News to me. I was aware that all 100 Senators met in Executive Session in the Old Senate Chamber prior to the impeachment. But I never heard a whisper that they were addressed by Bush 41. Until now. Are you certain of this?

*****************

An altogether meaty, thought-provoking post a tthe head of the thread. It has inspired serious responses and what they call "a broad exchange of views".

Well this is what the socialist party of America says about the war with iraq:
The United States has started another war against Iraq. We think there are some things every citizen should know about it.
The President is lying about Iraq
George W. Bush has worked hard to sell this war. There have been repeated claims that Iraq is developing weapons, perhaps biological or chemical weapons, perhaps even nuclear weapons, and plans to use them against Israel, or, somehow, against the United States. The Bush Administration has offered no evidence for these claims, and has no intention of providing any.
The target is domestic political dissent, not Iraq
What Bush calls the "War on Terrorism" is all about providing political cover for the right-wing Republican agenda: tax cuts for the rich, more public resources given away to big corporations, more government spying on citizens, stamping out labor unions. Bush needs war to stifle opposition to his domestic program.
Starting the war was a war crime
Under international law, it is a war crime to attack, or threaten to attack, another country that has not first attacked us. Iraq has not attacked us. The men who gave the orders to attack Iraq are war criminals, as surely as the war criminals who have stood trial in The Hague for genocide.

There are already too many victims Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died as a result of United States sanctions against Iraq following the first Gulf War. Many more innocent civilians will die in this war. Those who survive will likely face even harsher conditions than before. And many more Muslims around the world, witnessing this brutal anti-Islamic crusade, are becoming convinced that we are their enemy. Will you stand silent? The Bush Administration is hoping you will. They cynically expect that you will put your morals aside and let war crimes be committed in your name. They think you're scared and ignorant enough to go along with anti-Arab racism. They think you can be hoodwinked into giving up your Constitutional rights for the illusion of security. Prove them wrong. Join us in resisting the war.

This is what the communist of America say:

The first step was denial of union rights for workers covered under Homeland Security. On the drawing boards are plans to privatize 850,000 government workers' jobs, right-wing judicial appointments, and a perpetual state of war.

Under cover of fear of terrorism, the administration is preparing to limit and further attack civil rights and union rights; gut environmental protection, and allocate unlimited sums for tax breaks for the rich and excessive military spending, leaving nothing for people's needs. In Connecticut, days after re-election Republican Governor John Rowland who demagogically portrayed himself as a friend to workers, announced that 3,000 state workers' jobs would immediately be eliminated because the union would not give in to concessions. The same is shaping up around the country.

Every aspect of life is up for struggle. For the millions -- and growing -- of unemployed workers, the struggle is how to put food on the table and keep a roof over the head. For seniors it is the choice between medicine and heat. For workers, it is the right to a union. For immigrants, it is the right to be treated equally. For young people, it is the chance for an education and the fear of being killed at war. For the whole world, it is saving the planet from nuclear destruction.

WHOA! News to me. I was aware that all 100 Senators met in Executive Session in the Old Senate Chamber prior to the impeachment. But I never heard a whisper that they were addressed by Bush 41. Until now. Are you certain of this?

I've just searched the web using every trick I could think of and couldn't find a reference. Yet I still think that's what happened. I guess for now, you should consider that this didn't happen, but I will post to you or freepmail you if I can find proof that it did. Another thing that stands out very clearly was a very odd incident in which Robert "Sheets" Byrd sustained a burn on his hand, during the midst of impeachment which allegedly came from touching a shorted out dome light in his car. Do you remember this incident? Some folks thought a message was being sent to Byrd in this way. There were all kinds of photos of Byrd coming into and out of the impeachment proceedings with a bandaged hand. Strange times, that's for sure.

OK, Okie, this seems to be what I remembered. I went to the congressional record search page and found this.

I could not find this on any conventional site, not even free republic. I'm quite sure that this is what I remember. See the last line in the next to the last paragraph.


[Congressional Record: January 20, 1999 (Senate)]
[Page S810-S830]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20ja99-87]                         



 
   TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment. 
The Senators may be seated, and the Deputy Sergeant at Arms will make 
the proclamation.
  The Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Loretta Symms, made proclamation as 
follows:

       Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to 
     keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the 
     United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of 
     impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against 
     William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding that the White 
House counsel presentation today will last until sometime between 5 and 
6 o'clock.
  I have been informed that Mr. Greg Craig and Ms. Cheryl Mills will be 
making today's presentations. As we have done over the past week, we 
will take a couple of short breaks during the proceedings. I am not 
exactly sure how we will do that. We will keep an eye on everybody, the 
Chief Justice, and counsel. I assume that after about an hour, hour and 
15 minutes, we will take a break; then we will take another one in the 
afternoon at some point so we will have an opportunity to stretch.
  I remind all Senators, again, to remain standing at your desks each 
time the Chief Justice enters and departs the Chamber.
  As a further reminder, on a different subject, the leader lecture 
series continues tonight, to be held at 6 p.m. in the Old Senate 
Chamber. Former President George Bush will be our guest speaker.
  I yield the floor, and I understand that Counsel Greg Craig is going 
to be the first presenter.

This seems to be a partial text of what Bush 41 said in January 1999 to the Senate. He may have made other remarks, I do recall it was closed door. This makes is appear that it was some sort of a scheduled speakers series, like CSPAN booknotes or some such thing. Still, I think in these remarks is a subtle message to leave clinton alone. And as I said, he may have said other things that aren't in this text. As I've said, it was a strange time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/bush_1-21.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.