Who's Pulling Protesters Strings?

WHY THE APRIL 20 PROTEST CAN BE CALLED "HISTORIC"

By Brian Becker

The writer is a co-director of the International Action Center and a member of the steering committee of the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) coalition.

April 27, 2002--How will the April 20 mobilization in Washington, D.C., be remembered in the history of the anti-war and anti-imperialist movement in the United States? What are the most important lessons to be learned from this mobilization that drew more than 100,000 people in the biggest protest to date against the Bush administration's foreign and domestic political program?

Since there have been many Washington demonstrations over the years organized by both progressive and reactionary organizations, it requires something special to suggest that a particular demonstration has achieved a lasting or historically noteworthy status. Very few mass actions take on decisive importance in the historical process, the exception being revolutions or counter-revolutions--but a mass demonstration assumes special "historical" importance if it signifies the development of something new in society, or at least a sharp turn or breakthrough for a mass movement.

By that definition, the April 20 mobilization will be remembered as a historical moment.

Its historical value resides not only in the singularly important fact that it was the biggest demonstration in solidarity with the resistance movement of the Palestinian people in U.S. history. It also constituted a breakthrough for the U.S. anti-war movement and a repudiation of the shameful, backward political legacy of ignoring the just cause of the Palestinian people.

The fact that the demonstration represented something entirely new was not lost on the dominant big-business media in Washington. "Demonstrators Rally to Palestinian Cause" was the banner headline on the front page of the Washington Post under a three-column color photo of the huge throng. The article cited organizers at the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition rally at the White House who asserted that the event was the biggest pro-Palestinian event in U.S. history.

The Post article also quoted the police estimate of 75,000 people at the various converging demonstrations. Everyone familiar with police crowd estimates knows they are notoriously low for progressive activities.

While many issues were raised at the April 20 events, it was clear to all that the Palestinian resistance to U.S.-supported Israeli occupation was central. Support for the Palestinian struggle in the United States is out of the closet, so to speak.

Its historic legitimacy--which important sectors of the traditional peace and pacifist movement have denied for decades--has been boldly affirmed by a new anti-war movement that has arisen in the United States. This growing momentum for solidarity with the Palestinian people is bound to resonate throughout the entire progressive movement.

BRAVELY RESISTING THE RACIST FUROR

The April 20 mass mobilization had far-reaching consequences in one other way: It represented the courageous reassertion of mass, public political life by the Arab-American, South Asian, and Muslim communities in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001. That tens of thousands of people from these communities came to the White House rally was remarkable given the racist frenzy since Sept. 11.

These communities have been demonized as "terrorists." Thousands have been illegally detained. Tens of thousands have been "visited" by the FBI.

Even mainstream organizations and charities like the Holy Land Foundation have had their offices and assets seized for "aiding terrorists" because they made political statements in support of the Palestinian cause.

TWO COALITIONS: TWO POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS

The April 20 mobilization was primarily the work of two distinct anti-war coalitions: the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) coalition, and the United We March Coalition. There were many differences in the two coalitions' political program and strategic orientation. The most notable had to do with the struggle of the Palestinian people.

From the beginning, both coalitions had addressed many issues related to the Bush administration's so-called war on terrorism. But A.N.S.W.E.R. had specifically embraced the cause of the Palestinian people and their anti-colonial resistance to Israeli occupation. The United We March coalition stated that they could not come to a consensus within their coalition. So for a long time they had no official position on the conflict.

WHY ANSWER WAS ABLE TO FOCUS ON PALESTINE

After Ariel Sharon launched the murderous reoccupation of the West Bank on March 29, the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition announced that it was elevating the Palestinian struggle as the central focus of its still multi-issue demonstration.

A.N.S.W.E.R. could quickly respond to the new political/military developments because its national steering committee had spent months before the March 29 invasion discussing how to elevate political support for the Palestinian struggle in the United States. It had organized mass indoor events on Palestine that took place in New York on Feb. 23, and a week later in San Francisco and Los Angeles, with the aim of raising consciousness about the Palestinian struggle.

On April 20, the principal slogan of the A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstration at the White House was "Free Palestine, No New War Against Iraq." The White House rally drew a very large crowd. CNN put the figure at 60,000 in its coverage from the site, and organizers estimated a higher number of people present.

Organizers from the United We March rally estimated that 20,000 to 25,000 participated in their rally at the Washington Monument. While most participants in their rally were sympathetic to the suffering of the Palestinian people and a number of speakers denounced the recent Israeli atrocities in the West Bank and Gaza, the United We March coalition opted for a more general peace or anti-war message, rather than amending their six demands to include a specific call to support the people of Palestine.

ISSUES IN THE UNITED FRONT

The issue of Palestine and its potential prominence--or potential lack of prominence--in the demonstration was one focus of several disputes between the two coalitions as they negotiated over whether to form a united front on April 20. The two coalitions eventually agreed to hold a co-sponsored concluding rally near the Capitol. One of the most contentious issues in the talks had concerned Palestine and Palestinian participation at the concluding rally.

Some of the forces inside the United We March Coalition were enthusiastic in their support for a united-front action that A.N.S.W.E.R. had proposed. This was especially true of the New York City Labor Against War coalition, as well as others. But some members of that coalition, especially representatives of a group called the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, cited political objections to A.N.S.W.E.R.?s united-front proposals.

For instance, both sides agreed that Amy Goodman, the noted broadcast journalist with "Democracy Now!," should be an emcee at the concluding rally. A.N.S.W.E.R. proposed that there be a co-emcee--namely, Randa Jamal, a Palestinian student and activist leader. The A.N.S.W.E.R. proposal was motivated by the premise that a Palestinian co-chair would signify the centrality of the Palestinian struggle at this moment. The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition representative immediately rejected the idea of having a Palestinian co-chair. "That idea will never get through" the youth and student coalition, because the Palestinian issue is just "one issue," asserted the NYSPC representative.

The United We March coalition eventually agreed (on April l4) to A.N.S.W.E.R.?s united-front proposal by including a Palestinian co-chair for the concluding rally.

Both coalitions ended up drafting a unity agreement one week before April 20. The agreement stipulated that both coalitions would converge in a massive street march after their opening rallies.

WHY THE BACKWARDNESS ON PALESTINE?

Why is it that "Palestine" and deep criticism of Israel was almost a taboo in the mainstream peace movement in the United States since 1967?

This same movement supported the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and opposed the war in Vietnam. Yet when Israel launched the 1967 war against the Arab countries and seized the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai, only the most radical voices in the U.S. movement demanded that the Vietnam anti-war movement embrace the Palestinian and Arab cause as part and parcel of the anti-colonial movement sweeping the world. The larger peace movement turned a cold shoulder.

And history repeated itself in 1982. Then, this self-imposed taboo allowed the moderate peace organizations and some sectors of the pacifist movement to turn a march for peace and in opposition to nuclear arms-an activity on June 12, 1982,that drew more than a million people in New York--into a near irrelevancy when they refused to address, much less condemn, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that had begun the week before. Twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinian people eventually died during that invasion, as the Israeli Defense Forces led by Gen. Ariel Sharon drove Yassir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization from Beirut.

The reason for the historical political backwardness toward the Palestinian cause is frequently misunderstood or misrepresented as the result of the Jewish supporters of Israel who are active in other anti-war struggles but politically tied to Israel and thus unable to support the just cause of the Palestinian people. While this may be a factor it is not the decisive one.

WHAT IS THE DECISIVE FACTOR?

The problem lies in the strategic orientation of some sectors in the progressive movement who are looking to forge a left-center coalition, sometimes called a coalition of "broad forces" and the like. The goal is to reform the Democratic Party, to rebuild its so-called liberal wing in the national leadership.

This orientation flows from the conception that the main goal of the progressive movement is to prevent the triumph of the extreme right wing in the capitalist political establishment, and to defeat their foreign and domestic policies by promoting more "liberal policies." In order to secure the support of the liberal capitalist establishment, or at least to bloc with some of its leading lights, according to this approach, the progressive movement must limit its political program in a way that is acceptable or non-threatening to the liberal wing of the capitalist establishment.

The U.S. political establishment was deeply divided over continued involvement in the Vietnam War and later about U.S. support for apartheid South Africa. Consequently, there were significant expressions of support for the anti-war and anti-apartheid movements from politicians and even in the big-business media.

In the case of the Middle East, this left-center-type orientation has required this sector of the movement to abstain from showing solidarity with the Palestinian people because in the U.S. capitalist class there has been virtually no split over support for Israel. U.S. imperialism supports Israel because it serves as a heavily armed and relatively stable client state in the region where two-thirds of the world's oil is found. Groups looking to limit their political program in the hopes of winning substantial support from the liberal establishment have thus been required to neglect support for the Palestinian people.

The A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition shares the tactical objective of uniting with all possible forces against war, racism and repression, but not by liquidating its principled and strategically vital anti-imperialist political orientation.

The April 20 mobilization was historic because it broke through the legacy of inaction and put the issue of solidarity with the Palestinian people on the front burner.

PVN video available for purchase

Share this page with a friend

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@action-mail.org
En Espanol: el_iac@yahoo.com
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org

http://www.iacenter.org/a20_historic.htm

International Fact-finding Team Visits DPRK to Accuse U.S. of Its Wartime Atrocities in Korea

The international fact-finding team, headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, visited the DPRK between May 15 and 19 to investigate the cases of massacre committed by U.S. troops during the 1950-53 Korean War.

During its five-day visit, “the international group to probe the truth behind GI’s atrocities” inspected scenes of massacres committed by U.S. troops, heard testimonies of survivors and discuss matters concerned with DPRK officials concerned in preparation for “the Korea International War Crimes Tribunal on U.S. Troop Massacres of Civilians during the Korean War” to be held from Jun. 23 to 25 in New York.

The investigation team visited Sinchon County in South Hwanghae Province to conduct an inquiry in “the Sinchon Massacre,” while visiting the Sinchon War Museum, collecting documents and materials on the massacre and hearing testimonies of victims. (The U.S. troops, after occupying Sinchon County, killed 35,383 innocent people in the county or a quarter of the total population of the county from October 17 to December 17, 1950. In the DPRK, the Sinchon massacre is a symbol of the U.S. troops’ wartime massacre.)

Mr. Clark said that as an American citizen he felt guilty about GI’s atrocities during the Korean War. Noting that the U.S. government, afraid of the disclosure of its wartime atrocities to the world, has tried to cover up the truth, he stressed that victims’ testimonies were of great importance as they exposed part of the U.S.’s history of aggression against Korea and would be widely used to let many people know about the sufferings imposed by the U.S. on the Korean people.

The fact-finding team also held talks in Pyongyang with survivors of the Korean War and collected their testimonies about U.S. troops’ mass killings of civilians, indiscriminate bombing by the U.S. Air Force and its use of germ bombs.

The former U.S. attorney general said that facts probed and testimonies made by victims would be made public at the upcoming international war crimes tribunal to be held in New York.

In a press conference held on May 18 in Pyongyang, Ramsey Clark said that he had “the urgent task to let people know about the misfortunes and sufferings the Korean people have undergone since the U.S. forces occupied south Korea in 1945.”

“We will strive to let people of the world have a correct understanding of Korea and war crimes committed by the GIs,” he added.

The investigation team also said, in a press conference in Seoul after wrapping up its five-day visit to north Korea, that it witnessed the severity of the U.S. wartime crimes committed in north Korea during the Korean War and that their crimes were much severer than those committed in south Korea in the scale of damage and degree of cruelty.

Referring to the facts that the U.S. still stations its armed forces in south Korea and creates the condition of the division of Korea, Ramsey Clark pointed out that the U.S. still persistently makes vicious propaganda against the DPRK to cover up the truth about its war crimes.

Stressing that the biggest scar left by the Korean War was the division of Korea, he said that the U.S.’s policy of maintaining the division of Korea should be punished as “a crime against peace” in the New York war crimes tribunal.

Brian Becker, a joint chairman of the International Action Center, said he would make every effort for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from south Korea and for a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.

In September 1999, Associated Press began publishing a series of articles based on an investigation of the massacre that took place in the south Korean village of Rogun-ri in July 1950.

Faced with the increasing demand at home and abroad for a thorough inquiry into the truth about the incident, the U.S. and south Korea formed a joint investigation body to probe the Rogun-ri massacre. But their 15-month-long joint investigation of the massacre produced a joint investigation report which evaded liabilities of the government and the armed forces of the U.S. for their active commitment in the massacre. Lame duck President Clinton supported this U.S. no-fault conclusion, issuing a statement of “regret,” which the survivors denounced as a total whitewash.

The historic people’s war crimes tribunal is scheduled to be convened on Jun. 23 in New York, co-sponsored by the Korea Truth Commission on U.S. Military Massacres of Civilians, the International Action Center, a U.S. national progressive organization, and Veterans for Peace, a veterans’ group in the U.S.

The tribunal will judge cases of massacre committed by the U.S. armed forces from 1945 to 1953 and crimes committed by the USFK against south Korean people after the truce of the Korean War.

Kitandra Shandra, former justice of the Indian Supreme Court, will serve as presiding judge. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former justice of the south Korean Constitutional Court Pyon Jong Su and a north Korean lawyer will form a joint prosecution panel.

Mr. Clark said that one of the main purposes of the New York war crimes tribunal is to expose the U.S. war of aggression against Korea to “raise international public opinion that the U.S. should not interfere in the matters of the Korean nation and prepare a favorable situation for Korea’s reunification” as well as to thoroughly probe the truth behind war crimes.

In the war crimes tribunal, victims in north and south Korea and in foreign countries will make testimonies on war crimes committed by U.S. troops. A joint judging panel will be formed by lawyers from 16 nations which participated in the Korean War as members of the U.S.-led U.N. Forces.

The Korea Truth Commission, a pan-national coalition of civic groups, was organized in June 2000, participated in by civic organizations of north, south and overseas Koreans, after the political parties and organizations of north Korea issued a joint appeal to their south Korean counterparts and overseas Koreans to unfold a more active nationwide struggle to disclose and condemn the U.S. wartime massacre of Korean civilians.

While activities for investigation in the U.S. wartime massacres of civilians had been severely restricted in south Korea for a long time, the DPRK established a national fact-finding committee in July 1950, the month following the breakout of the Korean War, to probe U.S. war crimes. Ever since the cease-fire of the war, the committee has conducted a systematic investigation up to now, widening its scope of activity to crimes committed by the USFK in south Korea.

Jong Gi Ryol, secretary-general of the joint secretariat of the Korea Truth Commission, announced that north and south Korean lawyers would meet in Beijing on Jun. 17 to draw up a joint indictment to be presented to the upcoming Korea international war crimes tribunal. He also informed that Ramsey Clark, lawyer Michael Choe and other lawyers plan to file a suit in a U.S. court against the U.S. government for the war crimes committed by its armed forces during the Korean War.

http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/161st_issue/2001052703.htm.

Saddam and Kim Jong-il's allies organise 'anti-war' rallies
Gerard Jackson Melbourne: Australia BrookesNews.Com Saturday 15 Feb. 2003

Public luminaries like Brown, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Watson Laurie Brereton and Green Senator Bob Brown, Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja gave, with the support of leftwing union activists like Ron Hubbard and Martin Kingham, their ardent support to anti-American rallies dressed up as 'anti-war' rallies.

The Archbishop, along with Bob Brown, Laurie Brereton made their alleged feelings known when they addressed the crowds. What they and the other speakers did not reveal is that these rallies were organised by a dedicated Stalinist organisation that supports Kim Jong-il's insane regime and which has also allied itself with Saddam.

The organisation is ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) which is a spin-off from the IAC (International Action Center) of which the anti-American Ramsey Clark is closely involved. (Clark also serves as a legal counsel for Saddam's vicious regime. He also defended PLO leaders against a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly tourist who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists and whose body was thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship in 1986). The IAC in turn is controlled by the anti-semitic Marxist-Leninist WWP (Workers World Party). In addition, the WWP runs the KTC (Korea Truth Commission), a front organisation for Kim Jong-il. (Great company for an Archbishop to keep, don't you think?)

The WWP supported the 1956 Soviet suppression of the Hungarian revolution, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and Beijing's, massacre of students in Tiananmen Square. Since the collapse of communism, this group of fanatical Marxist-Leninists have largely devoted themselves to defending North Korea and Saddam's regime. This support is also quite profitable, allowing WWP leaders, who have no apparent source of income, to frequently fly to Pyongyang and Baghdad where they are very well treated indeed.

Brian Becker is not only a key figure in ANSWER and the IAC he is also a member of the secretariat of the WWP. It is basically through Becker that the WWP transmits its orders to ANSWER and the IAC. (In its own way, it is rather comical the way Becker tries to cover up his these links. But there is nothing amusing about his vicious mindset). By now it won't surprise readers to learn that the WWP's solution to the problem of Saddam is for the US to unilaterally disarm while leaving North Korea and Saddam's arsenals intact.

Given these facts why would Archbishop Peter Watson, Laurie Brereton, Stott Despoja and the rest of "the usual suspects" make common cause with a Stalinist group that is collaborating with two of the planet's most monstrous regimes?

I dare say the motives are pretty mixed. After all, Watson is not the first cleric to have supported a totalitarian group that was intent on the destruction of the West. There was the Anglican Bishop William Temple of Manchester in 1920 and who later became Archbishop of York and Canterbury. And what a pain he was, quickly dropping the evangelical way for secular activism. Where did this lead him? To declare that Adolf Hitler had made "a great contribution to the secure establishment of peace"!

Now Archbishop Watson has not gone as far as the ludicrous Temple or the notorious Red Dean of Canterbury. But when you collaborate with Stalinists who are denouncing your country and its allies while collaborating with their enemies you are walking a fine line. As for the politicians and union activists, a hatred of America and a loathing for President Bush and a destation of John Howard is what drives them.

Archbishop Watson's accusation that the war to topple the despotic Saddam is a "war of cold-blooded aggression" is meant to suggest that Bush and his allies are intent on war for the most venal of reasons. There was no attempt by the most reverend Watson stir up the crowd against the pathologically aggressive Saddam or demand that he be brought to justice by whatever means available. Instead, the crowd was addressed by rabblerousing Bush and Howard haters.

These 'anti-rallies' are no different in principle from the Stalinist controlled popular front rallies in the thirties, the Soviet directed 'peace movements' during the Cold War, and the pro-Hanoi 'peace movement' of the sixties that cost millions of Asians their freedom and their lives. Those activists were wrong then and they are wrong now. All they have done is to aid and abet two bloody tyrants, which is precisely what the WWP planned.

The thirties 'peace movement,' along with its silly 'peace pledge', guaranteed a second world war. Learning from history and experience Reagan and Thatcher resisted the post-war 'peace movement' and so ultimately brought down the Soviet Empire. Thank God Bush, Blair and Howard have the courage to follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Thatcher.

What our so-called 'peace' demonstrators have yet to learn is that those who demand "peace at any cost" eventually end up with neither peace nor freedom. Let us hope that this lot do not have to learn this lesson in the same bitter way that the thirties generation was forced to learn it.

http://www.brookesnews.com/031502peacerally.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.