>This is what is truly confusing to me. What was the content of
>Lerner's criticisms of ANSWER _before_ his consideration as a
>speaker on F16? His interview with the NYT happened when, exactly?
>And, if anyone has that interview/article, I'd like to read it. Some
>of the forwards to the list haven't been clear on timeline issues.
The New York Times - January 24, 2003
HEADLINE: THREATS AND RESPONSES: DISSENT; Some War Protesters Uneasy With Others
BYLINE: By LYNETTE CLEMETSON
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 23
BODY:
After a weekend of antiwar protests that many participants say signaled an expansion of public opposition to military action against Iraq, some organizers are facing criticism, much of it from within the movement, about the role played by their group, International Answer.
Attendance at rallies in Washington and San Francisco last Saturday was in the tens of thousands, and reflected a mix of views that spanned the social and political spectrums. Many protest organizers say the presence of labor unions, religious groups, business people and soccer moms showed a growing mainstream opposition to the war. But behind the scenes, some of the protesters have questioned whether the message of opposing war with Iraq is being tainted or at least diluted by other causes of International Answer, which sponsored both the Washington and San Francisco rallies.
Answer, whose name stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, was formed a few days after Sept. 11, 2001, by activists who had already begun coming together to protest policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Some of the group's chief organizers are active in the Workers World Party, a radical Socialist group with roots in the Stalin-era Soviet Union. The party has taken positions that include defense of the Iraqi and North Korean governments and support for Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugolav president being tried on war crimes charges.
The positions of some of Answer's members have caused rifts in past antiwar movements as well. In January 1991, at the onset of the Persian Gulf war, two coalitions of protesters marched separately, on consecutive weekends, because one refused to align itself with the other, whose members included current Answer officers who would not criticize the Iraqi government or support economic sanctions against it.
In an interview today, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a spokeswoman for Answer, said questions raised about the group's role were "classic McCarthy-era Red-baiting."
"When you select out the Socialists or Marxists," she said, "the point is to demonize and divide and diminish a massive, growing movement."
But Answer's critics say they simply wish that when it sponsors antiwar rallies, it would confine its message to opposition to war. At the rally in Washington, the group's speakers advocated causes like better treatment of American Indians and release of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the radical activist long imprisoned for killing a Philadelphia police officer.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the Jewish magazine Tikkun, which sent protesters to the rally despite concerns about pro-Palestinian speeches planned there, said: "There are good reasons to oppose the war, and Saddam. Still, it feels that we are being manipulated when subjected to mindless speeches and slogans whose knee-jerk anti-imperialism rarely articulates the deep reasons we should oppose corporate globalization."
Karen Guberman helped organize a small protest in her neighborhood in Northwest Washington last weekend, in part to provide an outlet for those who felt uncomfortable attending the Answer-sponsored rally.
"I felt like it was important just to go and be counted," Ms. Guberman said, "but many of my friends felt they couldn't count on what was going to be said, and so we did this very specific thing."
In fact, some of the newer antiwar coalitions were formed precisely to create a forum for protesters with views different from Answer's. Leaders of those groups have carefully avoided criticizing Answer, for fear that doing so would undercut their movement.
Still, the more mainstream voices in the antiwar movement may be trying to focus the message. The next national rally is scheduled for Feb. 15 in New York, and it is being sponsored by United for Peace, a coalition of more than 120 groups, most of them less radical than Answer.
Answer has signed on as a supporter of the New York rally, but it is not yet clear what role it will play in shaping the tone. Leslie Cogan, a coordinator with United for Peace, said her organization would welcome a wide variety of perspectives. But she added, "We want our speakers making a clear link to the issue."
CORRECTION-DATE: January 25, 2003, Saturday
CORRECTION: An article yesterday about a debate among antiwar demonstrators over the role of groups like International Answer, whose causes extend beyond its antiwar message, misspelled the surname of an organizer for United for Peace, who said her members welcomed a wide variety of perspectives from protesters at rallies. She is Leslie Cagan, not Cogan.