portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Great Article for Anti-War Organizers

what now?
points on building the movement


Such action promises the death and suffering of men, women and children as
innocent as those in the World Trade Center towers. The dying began well
before US bombing did! In Afghanistan and bordering areas, millions of the
globe's poorest people, already in the midst of a major drought and famine,
are on the move, fleeing the expected attack. Further, the pursuit of
retaliation against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and other targets will
create conditions for further attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on the US,
fueling a cycle of violence which further endangers residents of this
country more than it insures our safety.

This means that the most important political battle in building activity
and coalitions must be to keep opposition to all military action as the
basis of unity. One proposed statement discussed in a recent meeting in NYC
argued, "Those responsible should be brought to justice through cooperation
with the international community, not unilaterally-initiated military
action." There is a big problem with this kind of formulation: whatever the
US does will be multi-lateral formally, and probably in practice. That
won't change the essential nature of who is running the show or the dire
effects it will have in the world.

When initial levels of rage and fear began easing among the people of this
country, our message started getting a hearing. Now, with the start of
military action, we have been pushed two steps back. And we are still faced
with a real question raised by many folks we are trying to organize against
retaliation. "Okay, what do you propose that we do?" One answer the
movement has come up with is demands and slogans that prioritize calling
for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, an international tribunal, a
new Nuremberg trial, the application of international law, etc.

On the face of it, these demands are perfectly reasonable. Who would not
like to see those responsible for the deadly hijackings out of
circulation--permanently? Saying so, especially in one-on-one
conversations, is a no-brainer. There are, however, two problems here in
making it central to the movement we are trying to build.

One is that if we were to focus on the capture and punishment of the
hijacking planners, we would wind up undercutting the important argument
about the need to break the cycle of retaliatory violence.

The other is that trying to find just the right formulation about justice
and international law tends to leave us quibbling over things that we
cannot have much real effect on. In doing so, we enter on a slippery slope:
well, if there were an international tribunal, why wouldn't it be okay for
US commandos to capture the villains? And if it would be okay then, why is
it so bad now? We have to stay clear on what the main issue is--putting the
brakes on US actions which will kill thousands more people and worsen the
situation in the Middle East and Central Asia, not punishing the planners
of the 9/11 attacks.

That said, plenty of honest activists are responding both out of their own
outrage at the horrors of 9/11 and out of the conviction that we must
express a determination to punish the perpetrators in order to win a
hearing among the broadest sections of the American people. We should not
split coalitions over such issues (nor be silent when others seek to make
them central), but seek to win folks over where possible and minimize the
focus on this aspect in the politics of the movement.


We have to avoid isolating ourselves with stale or overheated rhetoric,
boring old-school demos, maximum programs or self-indulgent, symbolic acts
that make it easy to dismiss our message. For example, we shouldn't demand
that people endorse a wholesale critique of US imperialism to be part of
our movement.

But we can't do our job well in this period and be totally popular. We
can't move from 90% of the US people being in favor of some military
response to uniting a big section of them against a military response
without an intermediate stage of argument, struggle and polarization. If
there's no polarization, it means we're not being heard.

When we put forward our message in community and workplace groups, there
will be some people who we thought of as conservative who may say, "This is
really making me question what the government is doing," and others we
thought were progressive-leaning who want to hear nothing but "go and get
the bastards." We shouldn't be shocked or deterred by the second response
but be ready, psychologically and tactically, to deal with it. It's a
volatile period and people's reactions will be intense and shifting.

Nor should we kid ourselves that we can avoid some angry reactions through
easy formulations or wrapping ourselves in the flag. In fact, people who
really believe a US military response is the only patriotic one may find
our use of the flag more of a provocation.


We can, if we do our work well, speak to and draw on the doubts about the
wisdom of war and on the reservations about taking more innocent lives that
many Americans feel. We can provide a clear voice to help people understand
that there are alternatives to a "national unity" that amounts to a blank
check for the government to do whatever it wants.

Furthermore, there is a struggle going on in ruling circles and the
administration about how to move. One side, identified by the media with
Colin Powell, is arguing for careful attacks with limited objectives in
order to maintain an ongoing global alliance in support of US policy.
Another, evidently based in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's staff, is pushing
for more massive and broadly targeted attacks to overthrow or damage
several regimes considered hostile to the US, including not only
Afghanistan, but also Iraq, Sudan and Syria. A growing opposition here at
home will add to swelling international pressure, at both a state and mass
level, that can actually limit the scope of the US response.

The experience of the Gulf War has several important lessons to teach about
the dynamics of a movement like this. Now that actual combat has started,
the movement feels a bit smaller already as people who believe that their
main duty is to support "our boys," no matter what they are doing and to
whom, step back.

What we are doing now is also about building a foundation for the movement
we will need as long as the US government pursues its "war on terrorism," a
movement that can eventually grow, as the anti-Vietnam war movement did, to
really challenge the government's ability to carry the conflict on. It will
take time and hard work to build a movement with that kind of strength, and
our actions, decisions and determination today will have a great deal to do
with what kind of foundation we wind up with.


Since the US military response has started, we've begun to see--for
example, in response to the NYC October 7th demo--that people are more
hostile to protestors and more united behind "our troops." One danger is
that, in a period where the stakes are so high for humanity and we're
feeling isolated, powerless and stressed out, activists take our fears and
frustrations out on each other though un-constructive criticism and arguing
to the death on relatively minor points. We need to re-commit to principles
like trying to hear the kernel of truth in what a person is saying even if
you disagree; honoring and appreciating people's work; checking for,
challenging and rectifying white or male supremacist tendencies that are
mostly unintentional; and trusting that we're all trying to do the right
thing under difficult circumstances. Each person is precious because we're
all needed to go out and organize other people.

Some particular destructive tendencies are manifested when socialist cadre
groups yell and badger to push their line or promote their members as
speakers, rather than prioritizing who's the best speaker for the
coalition's purposes. These behaviors are offensive normally and unbearable
now. (This is not to say that socialist cadre organizations don't have an
important role to play: Freedom Road is, after all, a revolutionary
socialist cadre organization.)

An equally arrogant converse or response to that approach, feeling that
"I'm the only one smart enough to avoid alienating the mainstream so I'll
use any maneuver to silence these left sectarians in the coalition," is
also un-democratic, self-defeating and demoralizing. All our coalitions
need clear points of basic agreement, process rules and patience.


People born and steeped in this culture have to recognize that our
government has been wreaking terror on people in places like Vietnam and
Iraq, and arming and financially supporting murders of Palestinians for
decades. The horrible scale of death of civilians that we experienced in
New York is not a new phenomenon. As conscious, progressive people, we have
to put our emotions in a context, and figure out how we encourage others in
our workplaces and communities to do so--in a way that does not immediately
turn them off.

People from Third World countries, who can be an important part of the bloc
we need to organize, may well ask us: Where was your horror and your call
for justice when our people--people with dark skins--were being murdered by
your government? Have we heard you demanding with any passion, that the war
criminal living in your midst for all these years, Henry Kissinger, be
brought to justice?


For example, many of us have made a big deal about Osama bin Laden's ties
with the CIA. By itself, this seems to be a big "so what" for many
people--okay, the CIA created him, they should kill him. But if this fact
is presented as a prime example of the unintended consequences that can be
expected from the way the rulers of the US pursue their interests, it is a
most valuable point. We can use it to warn against the US government's new
allies in various repressive governments and the Northern Alliance in
Afghanistan, a genuinely unsavory crew. Currently being portrayed as
jut-jawed, eagle-eyed freedom fighters, its leaders have an ugly and
well-documented record of rape, repression, drug dealing and treachery.

Another example is that more needs to be done to tell people about the
scope of the drought and consequent famine and refugee crisis in
Afghanistan. The outpouring of sympathy for victims of the explosions has
raised the level of consciousness about suffering among ordinary people,
and of the desire to do something to help.

There are two approaches which we think are to be avoided in the current
situation. One is elaborate conspiracy theories--for instance, that the US
government knew this was coming and did nothing so it could get a free hand
to reorder the world in the interests of the US ruling class. Obviously
people who think along such lines have a right to take part in the
movement, but it would risk our efforts to broaden the movement to have
this be the message new people get from the speakers stand.

Another is the tendency to narrowly target the President--"Bush's war,"
"Bush's policies," and so on. There are two contradictory problems here.
One is that he is at a high tide of popularity now and slamming him doesn't
win any additional sympathy for our arguments. More importantly, there is
no public opposition to government policies in the ruling class so far, and
the Democrats in particular are making it as plain as they can that they
will back anything Bush does. Our blow must be aimed at the policies of
military retaliation. Any forces that tie themselves to those policies are
responsible for their results.


And it's here under extraordinary circumstances. The administration simply
does not have an economic policy. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is
basically acting as a cheerleader who denies what everyone knows. Bush and
others are pushing what Robert Reich nailed as "market patriotism," the
idea the main duty of Americans should be to buy falling stocks and max out
their credit cards. This seems weird to ordinary citizens and nuts to
people who understand how much trouble the economy is in.

In this vacuum, different blocs of capital, different economic interests,
are forced to pursue their own sectoral concerns in the most naked way to
try and shape whatever framework comes into being. The airlines were first
out of the blocks, with a furious lobbying campaign that got them $15
billion from congress within days of the explosions. Now the insurance
companies, hotel chains, travel agents and others have their hands out.
Meanwhile other interests are repackaging their programs as anti-terrorist.
The oil companies intent on drilling in federal wilderness areas have said
that doing so now is a question of national security. The free-trade
advocates, so battered by the new movement for global justice since
Seattle, now claim that the touchstone of patriotism is giving George Bush
"fast track" authority to negotiate new NAFTA-type agreements.

It is crucial for us to take advantage of this naked jockeying for position
and profit to expose the giant fraud of national unity that is being urged
on the residents of this country. The sharpest example so far has been
American Airlines, which announced two days after Congress passed the $15
billion bailout for the airline industry that it was not going to pay
contractual severance and health insurance benefits to the 20,000 workers
it is laying off. Outrage from workers, the trade unions and other citizens
has been so great that American and Northwest, which tried the same thing,
have had to back off.

There is plenty more of this on the way. Representative Dick Armey of
Texas, who was happy to vote for billions for the airlines, says calls for
extending unemployment benefits and health insurance to workers laid off in
the current crisis are not "commensurate with the American spirit here."

The practical implications of Armey's "American spirit" and all the calls
for national unity are on display right now in Minnesota, where state
workers are on strike after going over a year without a contract. They are
being beaten up by Governor Jesse Ventura, the media and too many regular
folks who've bought into the idea that it's unpatriotic for working people
to defend their interests.


Secretary of State John Ashcroft is driving to push through Congress an
anti-terrorism bill which will strip away rights for immigrants, greatly
expanding the government's ability to hold people in indefinite detention
without legal recourse. Expanded wiretapping and Internet surveillance
authority is another piece of the package. An interesting bloc of right
wing anti- big government organizations, cyber-libertarian types and
liberal civil liberties advocates is trying to stop this. It's good they
are taking this up now because we on the left cannot afford to make it a
top priority.

A chilling first product of this repressive push came with the news that
world-wide web hosting companies have been threatened by the new Office of
Homeland Security that their assets are subject to seizure unless they take
down sites which the government deems linked to terrorism. Among the first
victims is the archives of Radio Free Eireann, a progressive Irish radio
program which has featured IRA guests along with the likes of Irish Prime
Minister Bertie Ahern. A grim omen.


First, there are the direct vigilante attacks on Arabs, Muslims, and people
thought to be, like Sikhs, other South Asians, Philipinos and Chicanos.
These have been noisily condemned by all levels of government and
self-righteous types in the media. This sudden concern for victims of
racist attacks has everything to do with the US government's attempt to
frame the bombings as an attack on freedom and tolerance. Of course, such
racist attacks are spurred directly by official policies of racial
profiling aimed at exactly the same people the vigilantes have targeted.
Many Arabs have been detained and then released days or weeks later without
so much as an "oops" from the authorities.

As a BRC activist from Boston points out, lot of immigrants have felt
compelled to take up the American flag in a big way. In these cases it
signifies not so much deeply held patriotism, as a plea to mainstream
America--"Please, don't hit me."

More serious still is the overall reversal of the general political tide in
favor of immigrants. This had been signaled by the near collapse in the
late '90s of the Republican Party in California as punishment for their
anti-immigrant stand and by the AFL-CIO's reversing its traditional
nativist stand to call for organizing and normalizing the legal status of
undocumented workers. Now there are massive tighten-ups at airports and the
Mexican and Canadian borders, and new repressive anti-immigrant legislation
is being pushed through Congress. The gravity of this is shown by Senator
Dianne Feinstein, one of the big beneficiaries of the huge immigrant vote
in California, who has now proposed a six-month total moratorium on issuing
visas to foreign students. Out of many tens of thousands of women and men
holding student visas, one (that's 1) hijacker seems to have held such a visa.


One of the core forces is the traditional peace movement, which has
responded admirably. On September 10, its main attention was on building an
October day of local demonstrations against the revival of "Star Wars"
missile defense programs. Peace groups immediately began to direct their
entire attention to the current crisis and, along with progressive clergy,
were the first to organize meetings, discussions and vigils in most places
in the country. They will stay a central component of the resistance in
days to come.

As a result of their crucial role and the very nature of the crisis, the
ideology of the peace movement has been the predominant current in the new
anti-war movement. We see this in things like the songs, the peace sign,
and the widespread use of Gandhi's "an eye for an eye" quote.

One of the largest forces to come forward in the first days after 9/11 was
a wave of activists from the new movement against corporate globalization.
In practice, the US section of what is truly a global movement shaped by
struggles of the Third World has largely dissolved itself for the moment
into the anti-war struggle. The implications for the global justice
movement are not clear. The organized forms this movement has developed,
like the Direct Action Network, are some of the main organized voices of a
new generation of activists. They bring in methods of work and of
organizing which may not be familiar to older activists, but which deserve
the most respectful attention. These are, after all, the folks who brought
us Seattle and Quebec and changed the political landscape in the US over
the last couple of years.

An important question here is what the future of the global justice
movement will be. It is neither a single-issue movement nor a movement
based in a particular class or community. It may be that as the new
anti-war movement seems to absorb these forces, the anti-war movement will
in turn be transformed by them into a new incarnation of the global justice
movement aimed more directly at imperialism, targeting its political and
military as well as social and economic manifestations.

At the same time, perhaps the major strength of the emerging global justice
movement up until now has been its character as a real united front, a bloc
of different social forces. Right now, that front is very tenuous--the
trade unions which played a key role up to now are by and large not
involving themselves in the anti-war struggle. The non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) which provided the new movement with many resources,
funded in large part by big wealthy foundations like Ford and Rockefeller,
are backing off too.

The student movement is also shaping and being shaped by the new struggle
as well. Already on the upswing the last few years, it built on that
foundation to create a firestorm of anti-war activism on hundreds of
campuses within days of the disaster. It is very important for older
anti-war activists to remember to treat student organizers with respect as
the leading elements they are and not merely lay out plans for them and
expect them to tag along. Having so much activism develop on college and
high school campuses can only mean good things for the future of
progressive organizing. Most of the formations developing on campuses are
single-issue in character. As with the overall anti-war movement, the
direction these groups will take is not at all clear.


Few nationally known leaders in these communities have come forward to
emulate the courageous Barbara Lee and speak against the beating of the war
drums. This failure to lead sells short, sells out, the Black community,
the Chicano people and other Latinos, Asian Americans, folks from the First
Nations and others who are key to building a movement strong enough to
start to challenge and affect US policy.

There is definitely a divided consciousness among the masses. As one Black
secretary from Brooklyn said, "I feel for the people who died. I cry every
day about it, but I'm just not down with this flag, rah-rah America stuff.
What did this flag ever do for me? When I was pregnant and I was broke,
they wouldn't even give me WIC." But the lure of national unity can also be
very strong in communities which never get offered a slice of the pie. Mike
B, a rising comic, also from Brooklyn, runs a riff these days that goes,
"This is the first time I feel like an American, not just a Black American.
America's like a little gang now. It's like, 'Yo, G., we got to go get
these dudes.'"

A further complication lies in the contradictions between these
communities. For instance, folks in Sacramento working to oppose anti-Arab
activity find themselves starting at square one--there are few feelings of
commonality and a good deal of resentment in the Black community for the
largely professional Arab immigrants who tend to avoid living in
communities with a lot of African Americans.

In this situation, it is imperative that those of us who are based in
communities of color speak out. A model for this is being developed by the
Black Radical Congress, an organization conceived as a pole for the revival
of radical politics in the African American community. At a National
Council meeting held just weeks after the 9/11 explosions, the BRC took up
a national campaign around the theme: No to War, Racism and Repression! Yes
to Peace, Reparations and Justice!

Similar forces in all the movements of oppressed nationalities have a dual
task. First and most important, they must try and provide the leadership
that has not been forthcoming from other quarters in the spirit of SNCC,
Cesar Chavez and Dr. King in the Vietnam era. The recent Durban Conference
on racism has helped to inspire many US activists of color by showing the
global breadth of the struggle against white domination and the need for an
internationalist perspective.

Yet the task at hand remains a difficult one. It will require boldness to
take a controversial stand, patience to find allies, some surely in the
church, and a willingness to start small. Some groups based among young
people, like STORM in the Bay Area and the Brown Collective based in
Philadelphia, have already taken big steps in this direction.

The other task is to bring the voice and concerns of our
oppressed-nationality communities into the larger movement. An
overwhelmingly white anti-war movement cannot know how to bridge the gap
between its own limited base and the huge potential for this struggle that
communities of color embody. Someone has to be there to represent.


The present patriotic, flag-waving and militaristic ideological onslaught
is relentless and bound to have an impact on young folks. Already, military
recruiters have had a welcome mat at most US public schools, but now their
presence is bolstered by a virtually non-stop media campaign for military
action against terrorism to protect "our way of life." Progressive youth
and student organizations have a strong role to play in reaching out to
ordinary young people, to engage them in discussions about the current
situation, and to promote the idea that their future should hold the
opportunity for education and a good job, not to serve as cannon fodder for
the US empire in Central Asia.


Even before it hit, the struggle between the Sweeney forces and more
right-wing labor bureaucrats was intensifying. Now the labor bureaucracy
has by and large taken up the American flag and the cause of military
action. Why? Partly it is a reflection of the deeply rooted patriotic
feelings in the working class, especially in its white section. Partly it
is a result of the social role of the trade union bureaucracy, whose job is
to get a better deal for their members within the context of the existing
system. We are in danger of turning back to the days of the Vietnam War,
when union leaders were slow to rally to the anti-war cause, and only a
minority of them ever did. (The various stands taken by different
international union presidents are instructive. They are available at
< http://aflcio.org>.)

At the same time, this will be no time of plenty for the unions, like the
Vietnam era when President Lyndon Johnson felt forced to run a
guns-and-butter policy which raised the standard of living for working
people. The economy doesn't have the slack it did then. Unions and their
leaders will be facing redoubled attacks from management at a time when
they are already on the defensive. (Though it was little noted in the
aftermath of the bombings, Oklahoma on September 25 became the 22nd state
in the US and the first in fifteen years to pass an anti-union "right to
work" law.)

The AFL-CIO leadership will try and build a resistance struggle to economic
and political attacks while keeping it at arm's length from the struggle
against retaliation and war. To fight back against these attacks while
saddled by demands for moderation and sacrifice in the interests of
national unity and the war effort will be almost impossible.

Activists on the labor left thus face a difficult situation. The opening
for radical and progressive officials, staffers and rank and file activists
which appeared in the AFL-CIO with the election of John Sweeney's New
Voices team may well be narrowing.

At the same time, activists have stepped to the task, coming out
forthrightly against military action. Local 1199 in New York and the San
Francisco Central Labor Council quickly took stands against military
action. A group of activists in NYC started Labor Against War and within a
few days had hundreds of endorsers, including presidents of nine locals.
Such activities create a pole for like-minded unionists to rally around and
provide a little cover for those in more dicey environments. Some folks may
only be in a position to raise sharp questions and resist efforts to turn
their unions into cheerleading squads for retaliation. Certainly all of us
in labor can move to get our unions mobilized against anti-Muslim and
anti-Arab attacks here at home.


Some things have changed, but others haven't. The US is still the big
gorilla on the world stage, but it doesn't have unlimited power. After the
first days of showboating about "ending states that support terrorism," the
administration has been facing the reality that it will have to make big
concessions and changes in policy to pull off even a limited effort to curb
Islamic fundamentalism. The big loser here could be Israel, as the spell of
oil (and the planned pipeline route from central Asia through Afghanistan
and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean) makes itself felt.

The 9/11 events have made the US more a part of the world in the eyes of
its population than it has been in a long while. In its first eight months,
the Bush administration took one unilateralist stand after another, from
Star Wars to global warming. Now that's all changed. The US arrears to the
UN, which had been dragging on and accumulating for years, are suddenly
being paid up.

Regular Americans are now thinking a lot more about global questions as
well, partly due to the excellent groundwork that has been done by the
global justice movement. As much as the US government would like to keep
things narrowly focused on "terrorism," questions of global inequality,
western cultural hegemony, and so on keep coming up.

A Boston trade union leader says, "I believe that, incredible as it may
seem, the terrorist attacks have presented us with an unparalleled
'teachable moment.' For example, I find a huge audience for education about
bin Laden. There is little challenge to the argument that the US has to
stop supporting the bin Ladens, Noriegas, Saddam Husseins, Shahs, etc., and
that the US is to some degree at least reaping what the US sowed. Ditto on
the question, 'Why the fuck do you think so many people hate the US?' which
I thought would open up more slowly."

In the largest sense, people are thinking about what kind of a world we're
trying to get to, and there's not much in the present situation to drive
them toward the conclusion that it should be '90s style laissez-faire

A final word. The situation is still incredibly volatile. Anything could
change the dynamics. US combat troops on the ground in Afghanistan, a new
terror attack, a renewed crash in the stock market, a concerted assault on
the anti-war movement. We must continue to maintain maximum flexibility in
our tactics and openness in our analysis while going after the immediate
goal of building the strongest possible movement against retaliation and
war. The better the job we do now, the better positioned we will be for the
challenges of the coming months and years.

October 7, 2001 (updated October 8, 2001)

National Executive Committee,
Freedom Road Socialist Organization

wow 12.Oct.2001 14:27

Jen grievancegirl@yahoo.com

I am so grateful to Indymedia for access to incredibly thoughtful pieces like this one. It just occurred to me as I was reading this -- as much as we need to keep evaluating ourselves, we also need to take a moment every so often and thank each other for the support and love we offer of ourselves each and every day, especially now.

I, for one, have been reeling with the weight of responsibility that has now been thrust upon us activist- types. Many of us have already devoted every spare moment of our lives to our respective causes (with very little to show for it, I suspect), and now have the added burden of suddenly becoming experts on US foreign policy in the Middle East! We're plowing through Noam Chomsky articles, organizing rallies, sitting in on committees, attending teach-ins... all the while having to attend to our pre-war responsiblities and dodge insults from our brethren about how "Un-American" we are. It's really a bit masochistic if you think about it.

Nonetheless, I have so much faith in this movement! I really do. I want to give each and every one of you a big hug and bar of vegan chocolate for all the amazing work you're doing. I know none of you hear this enough, so I'll say it now --

THANK YOU!!!!!!! It is both an honor and a privilege to share this earth with all of you.