WW News Service Digest #335
1) Terror Bombing of Afghanistan
by wwnews
2) Sentate Denies Aid to Laid-Off Airline Workers
by wwnews
3) Carey Acquittal Could Reinvigorate Teamsters
by wwnews
4) Charleston 5 Released from House Arrest
by wwnews
5) Is Iraq Being Framed?
by wwnews
6) No Peace, No justice
by wwnews
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
TERROR BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN
Pentagon Targets Villages, Food Depots, UN & Red Cross
Centers, Creating 1.5 Million Refugees
By Fred Goldstein
As the debate goes on within the inner circles in Washington
over whether to widen the war, the U.S. government is
showing why it is regarded as the primary terrorist power in
the world with its relentless bombing of one of the poorest,
most defenseless countries in the world.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the Pentagon has sent
over 2,000 bombs and missiles raining down upon Afghanistan,
killing civilians, destroying the infrastructure of the
cities so as to make them unlivable, and creating a million
and a half refugees who have been forced to move away from
shelter, the food supply and medical care. And it is
planning to increase its attacks.
The casualties--innocent civilians who will die, become
malnourished or ill, lose all means of livelihood, and whose
lives will be traumatized and dislocated--will far exceed
the casualties of the horrendous Sept. 11 attacks in the
United States that destroyed thousands of innocent people.
The village of Karam, an hour from the Pakistan border in
eastern Afghanistan, was destroyed by bombs on Oct. 12.
There were reports of 200 people killed.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said such claims were
lies. But CNN camera crews toured the area two days later
and showed the rubble, the bodies, the bomb craters and an
unexploded U.S. bomb in the midst of what remained of the
village.
An Associated Press report carried in the New York Times of
Oct. 14 described the destruction in Karam and the horribly
wounded victims, including many children, who had been taken
to a hospital in Jalalabad. "One villager, Toray," wrote the
Times, "stood by the ruins of his former home, its roof
gone, and clutched a scrap of metal bearing the word 'fin
guided missile' in English."
The day before, the Navy dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a
residential neighborhood in Kabul, killing four people and
wounding eight. The bomb came from a Navy FA-18 in the
Arabian Sea. Earlier in the week a cruise missile killed
four civilian workers at a United Nations office.
JETS DESTROY RED CROSS FOOD DEPOT
On Oct. 16 Navy F-18 jets dropped 1,000-pound bombs on a Red
Cross storage complex in Kabul full of food and shelter
materials. "The Red Cross," wrote the Times of Oct. 17,
"said each of the five warehouses in its compound was marked
on the roof with a large red cross. The raids occurred about
1 p.m. in daylight, the agency said." The bombing destroyed
about a third of the food supply.
The bombing of the food supply only aggravated the war
crisis in Kabul. A New York Times article on Oct. 16 quoted
Shirjan, an unemployed former government worker: "Most of
the people who live in Kabul now are selling their
belongings to get food. There are no jobs for the people."
This is a brazen repeat of the tactics used against Iraq and
Yugoslavia of terrorizing the civilian population. The
strikes are designed to force capitulation when the air war
against military targets drags on, as it is doing in Afghan
istan.
And, just as in the Gulf War, the Pentagon has established
"kill boxes" or areas on the outskirts of Kabul and Kandahar
where U.S. pilots and gunners are authorized to fire on
anything that moves that they think is a military target.
This is how many civilians, including an entire caravan of
refugee farmers, were killed by U.S. pilots during the
Yugoslav war.
The escalation of U.S. military terror is proceeding
rapidly. Washington had earlier said that the bombing would
end after a few days. Instead, it has continued for 12 days,
as of this writing. On the 12th day, 100 fighters and
bombers flew missions attacking 12 areas of the country, the
most intense bombing of any day so far.
In addition, the Pentagon has brought in the AC-130
turboprop slow-flying gunship, which can fire over 2,000
rounds per minute of high-caliber shells and stay on target
with computer-controlled aiming devices. This terror device
can destroy buildings. It was used in Vietnam in a less
developed form.
WASHINGTON WANTS TO DESTROY STATE
This escalating campaign of massive destruction cannot be
explained simply by a drive to get Osama bin Laden. The fact
that the Taliban have offered to negotiate several times but
have been flatly turned down by the Bush administration
demonstrates that Washington's goals go far beyond that
limited objective.
Whatever else, the Pentagon wants to demonstrate its ability
to destroy a state by military force. It wants to field test
its new generations of destructive firepower on a living
people and put on display for all the oppressed peoples and
governments of the world its terror machine. It is an act of
warning, an act of intimidation, and possibly a prelude to
an expanded war.
To be sure, the Taliban is one of the most reactionary
political regimes in the world. Its brutal oppression of
women is absolute. But the destruction of the Taliban by the
Pentagon is the worst possible outcome of the present
situation. Victory for the U.S. government, a government
that only serves the rich multinational corporations and
protects exploitation, will only strengthen imperialist
domination of the region, to the vast detriment of all the
peoples of Central Asia and the Middle East.
Everything must be done to resist the Pentagon onslaught in
Afghanistan.
Washington has so far been unable to achieve victory and is
running into significant political complications. It is
unable to cobble together a viable coalition of cutthroats
to be installed by Washington should the Taliban collapse.
It has also come up against the India-Pakistan conflict
because of the abrupt change in diplomacy necessitated by
Sept. 11. Prior to Sept. 11, U.S. diplomacy towards India
was to warm relations in pursuit of economic penetration.
Even more important was the pursuit of India to bring it
into an anti-China political and military bloc. To this end,
sanctions were set aside which had been imposed after
India's nuclear tests and friendly diplomacy had begun to
blossom.
After Sept. 11, Pakistan was suddenly the key to the war
effort in Central Asia. India was suddenly left out in the
cold. And Secretary of State Colin Powell is trying to keep
the situation from escalating out of control.
All these complications notwithstanding, the overriding
preoccupation in high government circles in Washington is
which way to take the war, and when.
STRUGGLE OVER NEXT PHASE OF WAR
The New York Times of Oct. 12 gave a slight glimpse into the
debate. "A tight-knit group of Pentagon officials and
defense experts outside government is working to mobilize
support for a military operation to oust President Saddam
Hussein of Iraq as the next phase of the war."
"The group," continued the Times, "which some in the State
Department and on Capitol Hill refer to as the 'Wolfowitz
cabal,' after Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz,
is laying the groundwork for a strategy that envisions the
use of ground troops to install an Iraqi opposition group
based in London at the helm of a new government, the
officials and experts said."
The Times continues: "The group has largely excluded the
State Department. On Sept. 19 and 20, the Defense Policy
Board, a prestigious bipartisan board of national security
experts that advises the Pentagon, met for 19 hours to
discuss the ramifications of the attacks of Sept. 11. The
members of the group agreed on the need to turn to Iraq as
soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan and
Mr. Bin Laden is over."
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz took
part in the meetings.
The 18-member board includes former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger; R. James Woolsey, director of the CIA under
President Clinton; former vice president Dan Quayle; James
Schlesinger, former defense secretary; Harold Brown,
President Jimmy Carter's defense secretary; David Jeremiah,
former deputy chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Richard
Perle, former Reagan administration security adviser; and
Newt Gingrich.
"The State Department, including officials who work on Iraq
policy, was not briefed on the two-day meeting," according
to the Times.
To show the extent of the struggle, the Times said that "the
Knight Ridder newspaper group reported today that senior
Pentagon officials authorized Mr. Woolsey to fly to London
last month on a government plane, accompanied by Justice and
Defense Department officials, on a mission to gather
evidence linking Mr. Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks." The
State Department was unaware of the trip.
This current inside Washington, which is not limited to the
Pentagon, is causing consternation in sections of the ruling
class at home and in the imperialist capitals of Europe.
The Oct. 16 Washington Post carried an article entitled
"Allies Are Cautious on the 'Bush Doctrine.'"
The "Bush Doctrine," as defined by President Bush, consists
of "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists,"
according to the Post. But a corollary to the "doctrine" is
that "the United States will be the unilateral judge of
whether a country is supporting terrorism and will determine
the appropriate methods, including the use of military
force," to impose its will.
'COALITION BUILDING' VS. 'UNILATERALISM'
The current that promotes this so-called "doctrine" is the
current that wants to widen the war. On the other hand, the
current that is more fearful of becoming isolated in an
adventure and being overcome by a mass uprising is promoting
"coalition building"as a form of restraint upon the
adventurers.
Thus the struggle over the course of the war is taking the
form of coalition versus unilateralism. Since the European
imperialists are weak compared to the U.S., and the
reactionary client regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt,
Jordan and so on are even weaker, the fearful wing is sure
that any coalition will act as a restraint upon the more
aggressive factions.
Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Advisory Board,
expresses the views of those who want to rapidly and
drastically widen the war. "Perle has advocated using
military force against one or two other countries," reports
the Post, "including Iraq, to make a point beyond
Afghanistan. 'Whether it is Saddam Hussein or Assad or the
Lebanese or the Sudanese ... the regimes involved have to be
persuaded that we will use whatever tool is necessary and
that they are truly in jeopardy,' he said. 'The best way to
give that the necessary reality is to do it in a couple of
places.'"
At the end of the day, concluded Perle, "no American
president can concede that responsibility [to attack] to a
coalition or anybody else."
As against this right-wing view, 28 former U.S. ambassadors
and envoys to the Middle East and South Asia sent a letter
to Bush advocating working with the regimes in the region in
a coalition.
The coalition argument was summed up by Brent Scowcroft,
former Bush national security adviser and one of the
architects of the Gulf War. He wrote in a piece in the
Washington Post of Oct. 16: "We already hear voices
declaring that the United States is too focused on a
multilateral approach. The United States knows what needs to
be done, these voices say, and we should just go ahead and
do it. Coalition partners just tie our hands, and they will
exact a price for their support."
After enumerating all the difficulties of the war now
underway, Scowcroft declares that "success means a
coalition, a broad coalition, a willing and enthusiastic
coalition. That will take unbelievable effort and entails
endless frustrations. But we did it in 1990 and we can do it
again. ... It can help erase the reputation the United
States has been developing of being unilateral and
indifferent, if not arrogant, to others."
In other words, this former general is fearful of the anti-
imperialist explosion that could take place if Washington is
not careful to shore up its support among its imperialist
allies and clients in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Where the Bush administration will come down in this
struggle is an open question. What is important for the
workers, the oppressed, and all the revolutionary and
progressive forces at home and abroad who are fighting
against the war is to escalate their efforts in the
struggle.
U.S. imperialism is an aggressive military power that had to
exercise restraint during the entire period of the Cold War
because of the existence of the Soviet Union. There are
elements in the ruling class who still feel anger that the
U.S. did not use more massive military force to try to
vanquish the Vietnamese.
There are other elements that are still frustrated that the
U.S. military did not try to occupy Baghdad in 1991. Others
are frustrated that they had to limit their war in
Yugoslavia because of the necessity to come to agreement
with the European imperialists on targeting and other
military matters. Those tendencies and others have all
surfaced since Sept. 11, and are promoting their agendas
within the summits of the government.
The anti-war movement, the workers and the oppressed, all
progressives and revolutionaries must be keenly attuned to
the inherent dangers of a wider war as they open up the
struggle to stop the war in Afghanistan. The movement should
try with all its might to make the most massive possible
showing of anti-war opposition. This is the surest way it
can make a contribution to forestalling a wider war.
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
AS BOSSES GET BILLIONS: SENATE VOTES DOWN BENEFITS
FOR LAID-OFF AIRLINE WORKERS
By Michelle Quintus
New York City-based flight attendant
Flight attendants and pilots from American and United
Airlines lost their lives in the hijackings on Sept. 11. How
did the bosses express empathy with workers left grieving
and struggling in the wake of the crisis? At both United and
American Airlines they cut 20,000 jobs, received a
government bailout of $807 million, and claimed over $1
billion in "business interruption" insurance.
They are using none of that cash to save jobs or help
victims' families.
SENATE DENIES WORKER AID
USAirways flight attendant Joshua Freeze stresses that
government aid "should be used to guarantee jobs, wages, and
working conditions." But government aid stops short of
including any kind of worker relief.
Last week an airline security bill passed unanimously in the
Senate, 100-0, but only after an amendment for worker relief
was stripped from the bill. The amendment would have
provided for about $1.9 billion in unemployment, retraining
and health-care benefits to 150,000 airlines industry
workers who've lost their jobs since the Sept. 11 crisis.
Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, says that "to deny
workers any benefits, any assistance, any assurance that we
can overcome the current and terrible financial crisis, is a
continuation of the terrorist attack that began on Sept.
11."
A similar bill, the Displaced Workers Relief Act, is
currently going before Congress. But Republican leadership
in the House is opposed to bringing airline employee
assistance legislation up for a vote.
Greg Davidowitch, president of the Association of Flight
Attendants' Local Council 5 of New York City, explains,
"They are playing politics with our lives and livelihoods.
For aviation workers, the economic impact of this crisis is
very real and immediate. Now is not the time to abandon
these workers and their families, who have suffered the
first economic burdens resulting from the Sept. 11 attacks."
CAPITALIZING ON THE CRISIS
The airlines are seeking to take advantage of this crisis
not only by laying off workers and cashing in on government
bailouts. United Airlines is also seeking an expansion that
has united all of its labor unions in opposition.
At the same time UAL Corporation was receiving government
and insurance money, it was spending $11.25 million on
French business jets in order to start a new, elite business
catering to corporations, celebrities and other wealthy
individuals.
The new business startup will employ non-unionized workers
from outside the airline industry, according to Stuart Oran,
the United executive in charge of the new business. Oran is
a former Wall Street lawyer.
UAL Corporation plans to order fleets of business jets--
costing from $7 million to $40 million each--over the next
five years. The new jets are scheduled for delivery in April
2002. But UAL plans to start some interim service beginning
Nov. 1.
Tens of thousands of current, unionized workers will be laid
off by Oct. 31.
We need to demand that government aid be provided for
workers' jobs, not for further profit for corporations and
their CEOs. Flight attendants and other aviation workers are
the ones who risk our lives to provide service and security
to airplane passengers. Now, more than ever, we deserve
respect and job security.
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
GOV'T FRAME-UP FAILS: CAREY ACQUITTAL COULD
REINVIGORATE TEAMSTERS
By Milt Neidenberg
Retired Teamster
It's been a long and lonely fight for former Teamster
President Ron Carey. A federal jury finally acquitted him on
Oct. 12 of perjury charges. Conviction could have led to a
sentence of 35 years.
Carey was cleared of scores of charges that all revolved
around accusations that he had lied under oath when he said
he didn't know that funds had been improperly raised in his
1996 campaign for Teamster president. His victory over James
Hoffa was later overturned by government intervention.
The Justice Department, led by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White
from the New York Eastern and Southern District, had
orchestrated the campaign to frame up Carey. They conspired
with the so-called Independent Review Board that had been
created in 1989 when Rudolph Giuliani--now mayor of New York
City--was U.S. Attorney.
It's time to get rid of the three-member IRB, which is led
by former FBI and CIA head William Webster, and overturn the
decision that barred Carey from the Teamsters for life.
Carey's acquittal by a jury is a victory for the Teamsters
and the labor movement and a defeat for the government. The
acquittal will accelerate a growing rank-and-file opposition
to government control over the internal affairs of the
union. The rank-and-file Teamsters are even now refusing to
cooperate with the IRB.
Much of this is due to Carey, who democratized the union and
empowered the members to deal with corruption within a
bloated Teamster bureaucracy. Carey cut his own salary by a
third, sold off a couple of plush jet airplanes and
eliminated double dipping into union funds by officials.
Since that time, current Teamster President James Hoffa has
restored the perks.
WHY GOV'T TARGETED CAREY
It was a frame-up from day one. Carey had led the
unprecedented 1997 United Parcel Service strike and
settlement, which electrified the labor movement and set
alarm bells ringing in corporate America. From then on, the
government, Congress and the big business media made Carey
their target. They slandered him relentlessly.
The UPS settlement provided 2,000 full-time jobs per year
for five years for those who had been part-time and
temporary workers. It stopped cold management's strategy of
pitting workers against each other in a two-tier structure
that was leading to a downward cycle of wages and benefits--
an all-too-common strategy of big business.
The strike that Carey planned and organized in consultation
with the rank and file was so well organized that it lasted
only about two weeks. It was a splendid example that
inspired the labor movement. Rumors began circulating that
Carey would be the logical replacement for AFL-CIO President
John Sweeney when he retired.
Even prior to that successful strike, Carey was a thorn in
the side of the government as he mounted an intensive
campaign to end the federal takeover of the Teamsters, which
had begun in 1989 and almost destroyed the union's ability
to operate. Since then the union has lost over 100,000
members. Government-appointed officers have been paid
hundreds of millions of dollars from the Teamster treasury
to control the union.
There was another issue that got tangled up in the
government's crusade against Carey. Campaign financing had
become a hot potato in Congress. In 1996, the AFL-CIO had
poured millions of dollars into the Democratic coffers--and
Carey played a role in that. It was part of an all-out
campaign to get then-President Bill Clinton reelected. It
was legal.
But big business and its congressional allies were furious.
Congress threatened to investigate three top AFL-CIO
leaders: Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
President Gerald McEntee, and Service Employees President
Andy Stern.
These three labor officials, along with Carey, had been the
main dispensers of union funds to bankroll Clinton and the
Democratic Party. They were viewed as the liberal wing of
the Sweeney leadership. They feared they would be prosecuted
if Carey were found guilty.
Corporations and anti-union forces in Congress used these
attacks on the AFL-CIO leaders as a cover to introduce
repressive, anti-labor legislation. Equally important, they
also served to divert attention from the hundreds of
millions of dollars the corporations themselves lavished on
candidates of their choice.
These anti-union attacks should have been a warning to the
labor movement. Making capitalist electoral politics the
priority and throwing much needed money and resources at
candidates weakens campaigns such as organizing the
unorganized and other important struggles in the
multinational working class, here and abroad.
It is a mistake. The alternative is to take the road to
independent politics with all those struggling for economic
and social justice.
COULD CHANGE THE BALANCE OF POWER
To their shame, the AFL-CIO leaders distanced themselves
from Carey when he was under the gun of a vicious government
attack, despite the fact that he had been a main player in
John Sweeney's winning the AFL-CIO presidency in 1995. Carey
became isolated and alone in his struggle to clear his name.
James Hoffa, who capitalized on the situation and even
cooperated with the government against Carey, took over the
powerful Teamsters presidency in 1996. He is now the darling
of President George W. Bush and his administration.
Since he took over the Teamster presidency, Hoffa has
emerged as a powerful right-wing force within the AFL-CIO
hierarchy. To date there has been no serious opposition to
him from the Sweeney wing.
The Teamsters are now again in the throes of a national
union election. The incumbent Hoffa--who exploited the IRB
attack on Carey--is favored to win. He is running against
Tom Leedham, an heir to Carey's reform and progressive
program and a key Carey organizer in the 1997 UPS strike.
Hoffa, who denounced the UPS strike, has raised over $2
million for his campaign--a huge sum that couldn't have come
from the nickels and dimes of the rank and file. Hoffa has
built a machine of over-paid bureaucrats.
Carey's Oct. 12 acquittal could change the balance of power,
which now favors Hoffa.
The Leedham campaign and the Teamsters for a Democratic
Union--a broad-based rank-and-file movement that supports
him--can utilize Carey's acquittal and identify with him and
his program. Carey's record as president from 1991-1996, and
even before as the president of a UPS local, stands up as a
beacon of militant action and progressive reforms.
Leedham would do well to add to his program a demand that
Carey be reinstated with all benefits--assuming they were
denied to him and his family. It would also be an advantage
if Leedham raised the issue of ending government control
over the internal affairs of the union.
Though Leedham has only a pittance of money to run his
campaign, in contrast to Hoffa, this program can fire up a
majority of the 1.4 million rank and file--overwhelmingly
multinational, service oriented and with increasing numbers
of women--to support him.
The Nov. 13 union ballot counting comes at a time of
recession and war. As unemployment and plant closings soar,
as President Bush ruthlessly cuts away at Social Security,
health benefits, education and other social programs, the
Teamsters election will have far-reaching results for their
members and the entire labor movement.
------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
AS LABOR RALLIES SUPPORT: CHARLESTON 5 RELEASED
FROM HOUSE ARREST
By Leslie Feinberg
Five union dockworkers known as the Charleston 5 have been
freed from more than a year and a half of house arrest.
Judge Vic Rawl signed the release order on Oct. 15.
Just a week earlier, in a move that activists feel shows the
state's case is crumbling, South Carolina Attorney General
Charlie Condon, who was prosecuting the five, removed
himself from the case after defense lawyers demanded he step
down because of gross misconduct.
The five workers--four of them African American--have been
facing felony charges and years in jail. Their trial is
slated to begin during the week of Nov. 12.
The charges stem from January 2000, when 130 members of the
AFL-CIO International Longshore Association locals in
Charleston, S.C., set up a legal informational picket line
at a ship being unloaded by non-union labor. Some 600 riot
police armed with concussion grenades, rubber bullets, tear
gas, helicopters, armored cars and attack dogs attacked the
workers.
That night, Charleston municipal police arrested the five
dockworkers on misdemeanor charges, such as trespassing. But
State Attorney General Condon stepped in and stiffened the
charges to rioting and conspiracy to riot--felonies. Condon,
an announced candidate running for governor at the time,
took over the prosecution of the five.
A Charleston judge dismissed these charges for lack of
evidence at a preliminary hearing. But Condon went to a
secret grand jury to win felony indictments against the five
workers.
The case of the Charleston 5 has won strong support from
those fighting for the rights of workers and the most
oppressed. The national AFL-CIO, its state affiliates in
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, and the South
Carolina Progressive Network of 41 groups--including the
predominantly African American Longshore Local 1422, have
put their weight behind the demand to free the five.
The dockworkers had participated in an important
demonstration against the presence of the Confederate flag
at the State Capitol before the police attack on them.
The case of the Charleston 5 has sparked attention outside
the United States. The International Transport Workers
Federation, representing millions of air, sea and land
transportation workers worldwide, has vowed to organize a
one-day work stoppage on the opening day of their trial.
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
IS IRAQ BEING FRAMED?
Someone is sending anthrax to news agencies, politicians and
other officials, creating a massive scare campaign. So far
only one person has died, but dozens have tested positive
for exposure to the dangerous bacteria.
No evidence has been produced linking this to anyone in the
Middle East. Yet the climate of war fever is so great, as
the U.S. continues to bomb Afghanistan, that the anthrax
scare can easily be used to justify further expansion of
this war of domination, along with increased repression here
at home, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
At the same time that anthrax began appearing in New York, a
fierce debate was going on in Washington over whether to
widen the war to Iraq. Those who favor an attack on a
country already weakened by years of sanctions are using the
anthrax scare as an excuse. Iraq has "weapons of mass
destruction," they say, which includes biological weapons.
This is false, according to Scott Ritter, a former UN
weapons inspector in Iraq. Ritter wrote in the Los Angeles
Times of Oct. 12, in a piece entitled "The Bioterror Road
Doesn't Lead to Iraq," that "With its military poorly
trained and equipped, its economy in tatters and once-
vaunted weapons of mass destruction largely dismantled by UN
weapons inspectors, Iraq today represents a threat to no
one."
Why Iraq could possibly want to risk unleashing anthrax on
the U.S. at the very moment the Pentagon is mobilized for a
big war in the Middle East is not explained by those who
want to widen the conflict.
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
EDITORIAL: NO PEACE, NO JUSTICE
In the Vietnam War and again at the time of the Gulf War,
different slogans have defined contending currents in the
anti-war movement. That seems to be happening again today.
While the differences are important and perhaps inevitable,
they should not prevent the movement from mobilizing the
broadest mass participation in united struggle against the
warmakers.
For several years at the beginning of the Vietnam War, the
issue was negotiations versus withdrawal. Peace groups that
had until then been focused mainly on the issue of nuclear
arms raised the slogan "Negotiations now," counterpoising it
to a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. As large
coalitions began to form against the war, some of these
groups sought to exclude the demand for withdrawal from the
coalition demonstrations.
This struggle within the coalitions was ultimately resolved
in the streets. The demand to "Bring the GIs home" became so
immensely popular, and was so obviously the only way to end
the war, that it became the dominant slogan. Especially as
news began to filter out on how Henry Kissinger and others
used the Paris peace talks to threaten the Vietnamese with
nuclear weapons, the view that the movement here should
support a role for the U.S. government in shaping Viet nam's
future became discredited.
At the time of the Gulf War, the programmatic divide came
over the issue of sanctions. The first demonstrations, which
were organized by the precursor to today's International
Action Center, called for no war against Iraq. Period.
A second coalition formed in December 1991, a month before
the actual bombing started, that called for "Sanctions, not
war." This slogan implied that Iraq had to be punished--by
the U.S., but with UN cover, as it turned out. It also
implied that sanctions are not a form of war.
There are very few today who call themselves part of the
peace movement who would defend the sanctions on Iraq. After
a decade in which five times as many Iraqis have died of
sanctions than died of bombs, that slogan has withered away
as it became obvious to all that sanctions are a vicious and
brutal form of warfare targeting the most vulnerable members
of society--the old, the infants, the sick.
The issue today seems to be whether or not to have
confidence that "justice" for those killed in the Sept. 11
attacks can be had within the context of the existing
international framework.
The demand for justice is usually coupled with an
exhortation to hunt down and prosecute those responsible for
the terror attacks. In the meantime, without waiting for the
results of any investigation, the U.S. government is
carrying out a monstrous war against Afghanistan that
threatens literally millions of people with death by
starvation and exposure this winter. This death sentence is
being carried out on an innocent population long before the
judicial niceties of evidence, a trial and a verdict.
If the U.S. government were capable of bringing mass
murderers to justice, wouldn't the heads of the tobacco
companies be in jail right now? They knowingly condemned
millions of people in this country to a miserable death from
smoking-related diseases. And what about all the police who
have shot down unarmed people in the oppressed communities
and been set free after departmental review?
Are socially conscious people supposed to suddenly have
confidence that the authorities now investigating terrorism--
organizations like the FBI, the CIA, and local police
departments--can be trusted to dispense justice?
When it comes to activities abroad, the record is even more
dismal. If there is any organization independent enough of
Washington's pressure to bring mass murderers to justice,
then why isn't Chile's Pinochet behind bars? Why is Haiti's
Toto Constant alive and well in Queens, N.Y.? Why is
Indonesia's General Suharto enjoying retirement? Why are
Henry Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War, and
Zbigniew Brzezinski, mastermind of the Afghan counter-
revolution, still powers behind the throne in Washington?
The job of the anti-war movement is to stop the war. There
will be no justice while bombs are raining down on
Afghanistan. Justice for the victims of the terrible tragedy
on Sept. 11 will come with a people's victory over the
warmakers.
