United for Peace and Justice's statement on why they dropped ANSWER

From a Yahoo! Group with a bunch of ANSWER folks:

Subject: UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER

Ending the War in Iraq, Building a Broad Movement for Peace and Justice, And
Our Experience with A.N.S.W.E.R.

From the Steering Committee, United for Peace and Justice December 12, 2005

United for Peace and Justice aims to build the broadest, most diverse
movement for an immediate and complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
We see this as our immediate priority in the long-term effort to build a
durable peace and justice movement that connects domestic and international
issues. We are committed to working in a way that makes it possible for the
widest array of people to come together around common aims, including
communities of color, military families, Iraq war veterans and other
veterans, the labor movement, youth, religious community, the women's and
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender movements, professional organizations and
community groups.

As our coalition moves forward, we try to evaluate our experiences in order
to strengthen our efforts and overcome our shortcomings. In recent months, a
difficult and controversial aspect of our work has been our engagement with
International A.N.S.W.E.R in co-sponsoring the September 24, 2005
Washington, D.C. Rally and March. Following this experience, and after
thorough discussion, the national steering committee of United for Peace and
Justice has decided not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national
level. Here we want to share with all UFPJ member groups our summary of this
experience and the decisions we have made as a
result.

In spring 2005, based on previous experiences, UFPJ did not believe it would
be productive to make coordination with ANSWER a centerpiece of our
September 24 efforts. (See memo dated May 23rd - click here:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2853).
We had a particular vision for this specific
action:

(1) its central demands would hone in on ending the war in Iraq, thus
sending a focused message to the U.S. public and providing an entryway into
the antiwar movement for the expanding number of people prepared to turn out
for a protest demonstration; and
(2) the connections between the Iraq war and Washington's overall empire
building, the U.S.
support of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, racism, repression
and injustice at home would be articulated in accessible and creative ways,
not only via rally speakers, but also at an interactive two day peace and
justice festival, and throughout a 12 hour concert.

We did not believe ANSWER shared this perspective on the September 24
activities. Therefore we decided that working with them would hinder rather
than help in maximizing the breadth and impact of such a demonstration at an
urgent political moment.

As September 24 came closer and some
circumstances changed, we changed our
perspective. Regarding the weekend in general, the spotlight Hurricane
Katrina's aftermath put on racism and class inequities led us to highlight
the demand for Funding Full and Just Recovery in the Gulf Coast. Regarding
our relations with ANSWER, our concerns grew about the potential confusion
of having two totally separate demonstrations in the same city on the same
day. We seriously considered the thoughtful concerns expressed by some
anti-war groups and activists that an agreement for a joint UFPJ-ANSWER
action needed to be worked out. As a result, after much reflection and
without unanimity among us, we reversed our earlier decision. With the help
of mediation by U.S.
Labor Against the War, we worked out an agreement with ANSWER for joint
sponsorship of the September 24 Rally and March (but not other weekend
activities). (See the text of the agreement, click here:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3161).

There were two positive results of this
agreement. First, we avoided the problem of two completely separate
demonstrations in Washington, DC on September 24. Second, the rancorous
public dispute over the whos, hows and whys of September
24 was largely ended for the important period immediately preceding the
action.

But there were many negative results as well.

First, ANSWER violated the terms of our agreement in ways that substantially
and negatively impacted September 24's message and impact:

(1) ANSWER did not honor the agreed-upon time limits for its sections of the
pre-march Rally, going more than an hour over in one section. The time was
to be evenly divided in 30 minutes segments alternating between the two
coalitions.
Besides the impact in terms of disrespect to other speakers and the
attendees in Washington, DC, this meant that the C-SPAN broadcast of the
rally presented a one-sided picture of the antiwar movement to the U.S.
public. In the extended ANSWER section broadcast on C-SPAN, there was in
fact very little focus on, or explanation of, the central demand motivating
hundreds of thousands of people to attend the
demonstration: U.S. Out of Iraq Now.

(2) ANSWER delayed the start of the March for an hour past the agreed upon
time. We learned that morning that while our agreement with ANSWER was to
begin the march at 12:30, the permit ANSWER had negotiated with the police
had the march starting at 1:30. This led to confusion, which in turn
prevented the agreed-upon lead contingent carrying the agreed-upon lead
banner ("End the War in Iraq, Bring the Troops Home Now, Justice for
Hurricane Victims") from actually leading the March. This diluted the
March's message - especially in terms of media images of the March's front
rank. It also jeopardized relationships between UFPJ and the representatives
of several organizations whom we asked be part of the lead contingent of the
March. An antiwar movement still not as strong as we need to be when
compared to the tasks before us, in which developing relationships of mutual
trust and accountability is of vital importance, can ill afford such
short-sighted and narrow-minded practice.

(3) ANSWER did not turn out many volunteers to provide for fundraising,
security and media operations for the March and Rally. UFPJ was also short
of volunteers, but the much smaller numbers from ANSWER meant that many of
the practical burdens of attending to the needs of the crowd fell on UFPJ,
while ANSWER concentrated its attention on extending the time their speakers
were on the stage.

In our view, it was because we had insisted (against ANSWER's objections)
that the terms of our agreement be made public; and through the costly
expenditure of time and energy to deal with one issue after another in the
weeks just before September 24, that additional problems were avoided.
However, the interactions required to accomplish this were tremendously
difficult and stressful, taking a major human toll on the UFPJ
representatives participating in meetings with ANSWER. UFPJ has made our
share of mistakes and no doubt some of us may have made intemperate and
inappropriate remarks in the heat of political difficulty. We also see that
while our agreement with ANSWER did not require us to do so, the fact that
we did not inform them about the plans to include speakers during the late
afternoon/evening concert might have contributed to the tension. But the
souring of the political atmosphere is largely due to ANSWER, which, in our
experience, consistently substitutes labels ("racist", "anti-unity") and
mischaracterization of others' views for substantive political debate or
problem solving - both in written polemics and direct face-to-face
interactions.

Beyond all this, the priority given to
negotiating and then trying to carry out an agreement with ANSWER hurt
rather than helped galvanize the participation of many other groups and
individuals in the September 24 activities.
In part this is simply a question of where time and resources were directed.
But it also stems from the bridges ANSWER has burned over the years with
other broader forces in the progressive movement. Many longtime antiwar and
social movement activists - and many groups only recently embracing mass
action against the war - have had the same kind of negative experiences with
ANSWER that we did in the run-up to, and on September 24. Some people, and
some UFPJ member groups, believe this stems from ANSWER's political and
strategic perspectives. Others attribute the problems to what is often
called style of work, or to issues about democracy, decision making and
control. Whatever the case on this level, co-sponsorship with ANSWER on
September 24 was welcomed by some in the antiwar movement but limited or
prevented completely the participation of others.

This is not surprising: "unity in the movement"
doesn't happen in the abstract. Especially when up-close coordination is
involved, unity takes place between specifics groups and individuals, and
choices to work in close cooperation with certain groups with certain
approaches simultaneously means choosing not to work in the same fashion
with other groups. Of course we all dream of a situation where everyone gets
together as one cooperative movement family. But we still must deal with
politics as they are, not as we wish them to be. Sometimes it is necessary
for groups with extremely bitter relations to cooperate for a common aim.
But there are many circumstances when effective movement building and the
long-range process of developing unity is better served by different groups
pursuing different courses, until conditions change or the
groups themselves evolve and transform.

In terms of UFPJ's relationship with ANSWER, our national steering committee
has concluded that the latter path is best for the foreseeable future. We
did not have consensus. But by a more than two thirds supermajority we voted
on December 4 not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level.
We simultaneously recognized that other settings and situations may be
different. We make no recommendations or mandates on this issue to UFPJ
member groups in local or constituency-based areas, who will continue to
decide whether and/or how much to coordinate efforts with ANSWER based on
their own experiences, conditions and judgments.

The tasks in front of the anti-Iraq war movement and all of us who are
struggling for peace and justice are immense. Yet this is a moment of great
opportunity, as popular anger at Bush's wars against people abroad and at
home grows, and as an expanding number of organizations - many with massive
constituencies among poor, working and oppressed peoples - are willing to
consider taking up aggressive protest mobilizations.
United for Peace and Justice will redouble our efforts to push forward the
antiwar movement and to bring the broadest and most diverse array of people
and groups into the struggle for peace and justice.

many responses

ANSWER needs to get their head and their ass wired together and get with the program.

I know they are great at organizing, but their performance at the DC protest was extremely irritating to me. Now granted, there was far more going on than just the answer rally, but that is what got the majority of coverage and my god was it annoying! (i.e. "hey, we got a real treat for you right now... here is 'unrecognized by anyone' poet to read a 20 minute long rambling that will have you racing to change the channel!" LOL

Even when everyone left that's all you saw. I got better coverage watching the the traffic cams online.




Keith’s Barbeque Central

...O...

thanks for posting

Very good! About friggin' time.

why they were allowing it to go on so long after the march was supposed to start. We were told that it was because of delays in getting people to the rally due to problems with the DC Metro transit system and Amtrack, to please be patient. We tried to be patient, but it wasn't handled very well, and finally we all just abandonded the rally and spontaneously joined the march, which come to find out had already started. The route was totally jammed with people moving very slowly until we got past the White House, then it thinned out and it was possible to walk at a more normal pace.

In spite of difficulties, I was glad that UFPJ had ironed out their problems with ANSWER and decided to have a joint march and rally. The overall meaning of the march was to end oppression and occupation in all countries, but especially Iraq.

in San Diego, Ca.

I did the march - it was wonderful. We chanted for peace and an end to the occupation.

But many participants complained about ANSWER's involvement; many felt they had a very negative impact on the rally after the march.

I would not know, for I took Daughter out for lunch after that, and met my sister at the zoo.

I guess that the complaint was that the speakers at the rally spoke about the Palestinian issue; that is also an important issue. I do agree, however, that our focus that day was upon calling for peace and an end to the occupation of Iraq, and I didn't want anything to diminish that focus.

Just my two cents' worth.

...and, at worst, just might be DELIBERATELY
attempting to marginalize the issues they claim to care about.

I don't know which it is- likely there's a bit of both going on.

But, deliberate or not, they certainly DO manage
to perpetuate almost EVERY negative stereotype
the wingnuts ever saddle us with.

They are a goddamn ANCHOR around the neck of liberal/progressive causes.

if not for the holidaze slumber, this little announcement would have gotten a nice fat 300 replys by now...I have the feeling I haven't heard the last of this.

However, it's worth a second go around. A.N.S.W.E.R. did some asinine things at the Sept 24th protest and I think we are well to be rid of them. Good riddance to bad rubbish and all that.

Kicked and Recommended. It's just as worthy the second time around.

for radical mullahs in our demos. Not that what they say is piffle but their issues are usually peripheral to central dominating theme of GET THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ!!

ANSWER was never about Iraq.