Fwd: Marc Cooper's Latest Nation Article

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>The Nation - December 9, 2002
>
>Antiwar Labor Pains
>by MARC COOPER
<snip>
>The limited appeal of antiwar activity within unions is not only the 
>responsibility of labor's cautious leadership, but also of the peace 
>movement in general and of some peace activists within labor, who 
>have made a few strategic missteps. Many of the labor activists in 
>the forefront of the Iraq peace movement are the same people who 
>unsuccessfully tried to jump-start a similar movement in the 
>immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. Seriously misreading the 
>sentiment of mainstream labor, which believed that at least some 
>sort of limited US military response was in order, these mostly 
>white-collar and ideologically left activists tried to drum up a 
>movement to oppose intervention in Afghanistan. On September 27, 
>2001--just two weeks after the attacks and while the national and 
>New York AFL-CIO were still actively mourning the death of hundreds 
>of members in them--activists from NYCLAW, for example, had already 
>issued their first public statement opposing any sort of US military 
>action.
>
>"This was really way off base," says a politically progressive AFL 
>official close to John Sweeney. "No matter what one's personal 
>political opinion, you really had to be out in left field to not 
>understand the angry patriotism that was rippling through labor. We 
>had just lost something like 500 guys, and no one was in the mood to 
>go light candles at a peace vigil."
>
>NYCLAW's Letwin concedes that the rushed September 27 peace 
>statement by his group was looked on as "tainted" because of its 
>timing. But, he argues, "I think that along with a lot of union 
>leadership, a lot of the grassroots saw that as a good statement. 
>They were saying to themselves, 'I'm not going to sign it, but I'm 
>glad someone is out there saying these things.'"
>
>Maybe, but in any case, many at the top of the federation agree that 
>the Iraq situation is very different from Afghanistan, and they 
>recognize that there is now a lot more visible and vocal discomfort 
>with and opposition to the White House's overseas plans. "Also, the 
>elections are now over," says the federation official. "And if the 
>Democrats take a harder line against the war than they have so far, 
>labor will be more willing to do the same. But that leaves open the 
>question of just what peace movement we are comfortable being part 
>of."
>
>That's a reference to discomfort with those currently orchestrating 
>some of the highest-profile antiwar protests. While demonstrations 
>in Washington and San Francisco brought out scores of thousands with 
>an eclectic range of politics, the protests were organized and the 
>podium dominated by a small, sectarian Stalinist group, the Workers 
>World Party. Consequently, while much of the demonstration rhetoric 
>was against the war, it was also tinged with an anti-Americanism and 
>loaded down with ancillary issues ranging from support for convicted 
>murderers Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown to sometimes paranoid 
>condemnations of Zionism that in no way resonate with the bulk of 
>organized labor. No doubt the rally crowds were peppered with 
>hundreds, if not thousands, of union members and activists, but 
>there was no institutional representation of Big Labor, as there has 
>been at numerous antiglobalization events of the past few years.
>
>"John Sweeney is no George Meany," says the AFL official, referring 
>to former federation president Meany's aggressive support for the 
>Vietnam War. And he notes that significant participation by labor in 
>the peace movement would, indeed, aid in broadening and 
>mainstreaming the antiwar message, pushing some of the sectarians to 
>the side. But, he added, that moment is not yet upon us. "It's not 
>at all unthinkable that in the weeks to come we will see Sweeney 
>speaking out more against the war. But you can be sure he isn't 
>going to be speaking from the same stage as the Workers World Party."

If John Sweeney and AFL-CIO officialdom wish to speak out more 
against the war, it is _not at all_ necessary for them to join 
WW/IAC/ANSWER or any other coalition.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics 
reported that "[i]n both 2001 and 2000, about 16.3 million wage and 
salary workers were union members."  Let's say that AFL-CIO calls its 
own peace demonstration, works hard, and succeeds in mobilizing 1% of 
the unionized workers.  That'll make a demonstration of 163,000. 
Even the hypothetical 1% mobilization would already top the number of 
D.C. anti-war protesters on Oct. 26, 2002 reported in the Washington 
Post.  If AFL-CIO works harder and gets out 10% of its members, why, 
that's a rally of more than 1.6 million workers!!!  In short, they 
got the number, and they got the requisite financial resources to get 
buses (with beer and other refreshments on the buses to boot) from 
all over the United States to DC or NY or SF or all of them at the 
same time, _without_ including _any_ of the socialists, anarchists, 
pacifists, and other "ideologically left activists," to have a safe 
and peaceful rally against the war _completely free from_ any mention 
of Mumia, Al-Amin, Zionism, or anything else that may divide the 
labor officials and rank-and-file members.  If the labor officials 
were serious about their opposition to the war, they could call _a 
rally of their own_; if they did and the turnout were big enough, 
that would be a fabulous thing, however tame its content might be.  I 
don't expect them to get off their asses any time soon, though.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>