Thank you so much for this weekend. I was so happy to see that groups like ANSWER & NION are finally losing the battle for the hearts and millions of awesome people who are taking a stand against war. Thank you for helping us so far, but once our eyes are open and we find out that you authoritarian coalitions are just as bad as this system that we are fighting, we can no longer support you, we can no longer allow you to use us, allow you to ask for donations of $$ like we were church and allow you to continue to manipulate some very good hearted people
to find our more information check out
So the connection between ANSWER, the IAC and Workers World Party is VERY CLEAR! you can see this easily by just going to the following website
ANSWER
http://www.internationalanswer.org/ IAC
http://www.iacenter.org/ WORKERS WORLD PARTY
http://www.workers.org/ They don't even hide it. The same phone # and fax # this is listed on the IAC and WWP as national contact #'s 212-633-6646
fax 212-633-2889
just HAPPENS to also be the same number for ANSWER national line
what the hell is going on here?
and does anyone even care?
does anyone care that they are going to basically Workers World Party protest? this is a pro-stalinist organzations BTW, a group that supported the works of the horrific Slobodan Milosevic, a group that supported Deng Xiaoping in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Do any of you so called activist even give a fuck? and you call it red-baiting when people point this shit out. This makes me so sick.
What the hell is wrong with these organizations. Why the hell can't any of you stay honest and decent, and let people know what you believe and THEN find out if they actually support you? why do you have to lie and EXPLOIT the anti-war movement with your awful protests with people just holding signs and walking around, protests that get NOTHING done! NOTHING! you had 200,000 or however many people in the streets of SF and DC, what the hell did that do? you could have organzied NON-VIOLENT civil disobediance, and you didn't even do that. Right now it's Wed. Jan 22, 5 days after your march, and everyone has forgot about what happned this weekend already. NOBODY is talking about, because as usual it was a waste of time, money and energy, that accomplished NOTHING!
Anyone who brings up these issues you say that they are using cointelpro.
It's not cointelpro to critize, especially when the lies and bull shit are coming from your side, it's not cointelpro to point out the obvious, you all don't even try to hide it, it's as plain as day.
the WWP (Workers World Party) is the IAC (international Action center) which in turn is ANSWER. You share the same phone lines, meet in the same offices, have the same power structure, fund each others events.
is there even a list to account for any of the $$ that you spend. You ask for donations at every rally, it feels like im attending chruch. What the hell do you do with that money that people give you. It's their hard earned dollars. What do you do with it? who decided what you do with it? where does it go? and to what organzations.
You want the red-baiting to end? well you can have that in a very simple step.
BE HONEST!
BE HONEST
BE TRANSPARENT
BE TRANSPARENT
are you that ashamed of your WWP politics that you have to hide it not just behind ONE but but behind TWO organizations?
ANSWER is not the answer, and this "red-baiting" will not go away until you stop your irresponsible and disgusting organzing practices.
Want more proof? check out:
http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/27079.php or
http://authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidaldictators-forpeace.org/ Excerpted from:
Ten Q&A On Antiwar Organizing
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527 (8) How should we relate to groups doing antiwar work with whom we disagree in significant ways -- the IAC and ANSWER, NION, the war's mainstream opponents? How do we evaluate all these? Should we work with people we have serious differences with, avoid them, or what?
There is no universal rule for how to relate to those with whom we disagree. If we automatically refused to have anything to do with any person or organization with whom we had differences, then we'd be protesting the war in demonstrations of two or three individuals. Obviously, we need to take account of how much disagreement there is and whether working with particular groups allows us to express a shared agreement and further our goals, despite our disagreements, or whether, on the other hand, working with particular groups restricts or undermines our efforts in some significant ways.
One extremely energetic antiwar group is the International Action Center (IAC). It is the leading force in the coalition ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) which is calling the October 26 demonstrations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. (IAC and ANSWER share a New York City phone number and the latter's website features many materials from IAC.) IAC is officially led by Ramsey Clark and is largely the creation of the Workers World Party; many key IAC figures are prominent writers for WWP.
WWP holds many views that we find abhorrent. It considers North Korea "socialist Korea" where the "land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways, everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole" (Workers World, May 9, 2002), a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world. IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic (
http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosdeligation.htm). There's of course much to criticize in the one-sided Hague war crimes tribunal, but to champion Milosevic is grotesque. The ANSWER website provides an IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as "socialist" and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the "USSR intervened militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government" (
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html) -- neglecting to mention that Moscow first had to engineer the execution of the Afghan leader to get themselves the invitation to intervene.
In none of IAC's considerable resources on the current Iraq crisis is there a single negative word about Saddam Hussein. There is no mention that he is a ruthless dictator. (This omission is not surprising, given their inability to detect any problem of dictatorship with the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.) There is no mention that Hussein is responsible for the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites. IAC's position is that any opponent of U.S. imperialism must be championed and never criticized.
How do these views affect antiwar demonstrations organized by IAC or ANSWER? They do so in two primary ways.
First, an important purpose of antiwar demonstrations is to educate the public, so as to be able to build a larger movement. If the message of a demonstration is that opposition to U.S. war means support for brutal regimes, then we are mis-educating the public, and limiting the growth of the movement. To be sure, some true things we say may also alienate some members of the public, and often that is a risk we must take in order to communicate the truth and change awareness. But to tell the public that they have to support either George Bush or Saddam Hussein is not true and is certainly not a way to build a strong movement. People are not wrong to be morally repelled by Saddam Hussein. An antiwar movement that cannot make clear its opposition to the crimes of both Bush and Hussein will of necessity be limited in size.
The second problem with IAC-organized demonstrations is that the day-to-day practice of IAC cadre often shows a lack of commitment to democratic and open behavior. It is not surprising that those who lionize the dictatorial North Korean regime will be somewhat lacking in their appreciation of democratic practice.
Does this mean that people who reject these abhorrent views of the IAC shouldn't attend the October 26 antiwar demonstrations in Washington, DC, San Francisco, and elsewhere? No.
If there were another large demonstration organized by forces more compatible with the kinds of politics espoused by other antiwar activists, including ourselves, then we would urge people to prefer that one. And there is no doubt we should be working to build alternative organizational structures for the antiwar movement that are not dominated by IAC. But at the moment the ANSWER demonstration is the only show in town. And much as we may oppose Saddam Hussein, we also oppose Bush, and the paramount danger today is the war being prepared by the U.S. government.
So we need to consider various questions.
First, are those with antiwar views contrary to the IAC's perspective excluded from speaking? Second, what will be the primary message perceived by those present at the demonstrations and by the wider public?
If past experience is a guide, IAC demonstrations will have programs skewed in the direction of IAC politics, but without excluding alternative voices. In general, the IAC speakers will not be offensive so much for what they say, but for what they don't say. That is, they won't praise Saddam Hussein from the podium, but nor will they utter a critical word about him. However, as long as other speakers can and do express positions with a different point of view, the overall impact of the event will still be positive, particularly in the absence of other options. Most of the people at the demonstration will in fact be unaware of exactly who said what and whether any particular speaker omitted this or that point. What they will experience will be a powerful antiwar protest. And most of the public will see it that way too. (As was the case during the Vietnam War too: few demonstrators knew the specific politics or agendas of demonstration organizers.) Accordingly, and in the absence of any alternative event, it makes sense to help build and to attend the October 26 demonstration, while also registering extreme distaste for the IAC, at least in our view.
Another significant antiwar organization is Not In Our Names. NION has issued a very eloquent and forceful Pledge of Resistance opposing Bush's war on terrorism, signed by prominent individuals and thousands of others. NION organized important demonstrations around the U.S. on October 6 and on June 6.
Significant impetus behind NION comes from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). RCP identifies itself as followers of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Their website (
http://rwor.org/) expresses support for Shining Path in Peru (which they say should properly be called the Maoist Communist Party of Peru), an organization with a gruesome record of violently targeting other progressive groups. For the RCP, freedom doesn't include the right of a minority to dissent (this is a bourgeois formulation, they say, pushed by John Stuart Mill and Rosa Luxembourg); the correct view, they say, is that of Mao (the "greatest revolutionary of our time"): "If Marxist Leninists are in control, the rights of the vast majority will be guaranteed."
Despite these views, however, RCP does not push its specific positions on NION to the degree that IAC does on ANSWER. For example, while the ANSWER website offers such things as the IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan cited above, the NION website and its public positions have no connection to the sometimes bizarre views of the RCP.
The case for participating in NION events is stronger than for ANSWER events. It still makes overwhelming sense to build better antiwar coalitions, but in the meantime supporting NION activities promotes an antiwar message that we support, with relatively little compromise of our views.
Another group that may support antiwar activities but with whom we have serious disagreements are liberal politicians. Many of these politicians have totally capitulated to Bush and the right, but a few of them have been strong voices against war. Our diagnosis of and prescription for U.S. warmongering differ substantially from those of antiwar liberals. Should we participate in events where Democratic Party officeholders are leading speakers? Again, the same basic logic applies. Does the presence of the Democrat in some way prevent us from saying what we want to say? (Sure, at an event where Democrat X is speaking, we won't be welcome to give a speech denouncing X as a running-dog lackey of the ruling class. But it is unlikely that this is what we wanted to say in our ten-minute antiwar speech anyway.) And, second, what message does the public come away with? If the whole event is billed as a "Let's Wait A Week for War" demonstration, then no matter what we say our participation will be contributing to a cause we don't support, pursuing war a week from now. But as long as the demonstration has a clear antiwar position, the presence and participation of liberal Democrats should not preclude our participation. Indeed, if we were on the committee choosing speakers, we would support including many speakers who didn't agree with us on many things, but who were clearly antiwar and who could appeal to audiences that we hadn't been as successful in attracting.
A JOKE
All praise Where Praise is Due!!
All praise to our savior, our lord, the eternal Christ, Ramsey C. Clarke, the head of International Answer and the declared Messaiah that has come to redeem us at the time of apocolypse!!
Lasdt night I had a dream, actually more of a prophetic vision:
War was spreading all over the world. The anti-Christ (Bush) was fighting the forces of good in the world (Hussein, Arafat, Pol Pot, Kim Il Jung II, Mugabe) and we were on the verge of the Armageddon destroying the earth.
Then, from the sky, the Lord heard righteous peoples' despertate cry for a heavenly prince to come and dethrone the Satan of the Lower World. He answered the call and sent us Ramsey Clarke, our lord and savior.
It is said that the Lord will send a final prophet for the earth's redemption in hidden form. In this case, the lord has chosen an aging activist from the WWP front-group ANSWER in order to reveal the hidden message of truth and the unity and oneness of the creator.
I will never forget meeting Clarke at a rally in DC in support of Slobodan Milosevic. At the time my wife was having difficulty conceiving a child. We had tried everything, doctors, revolutionary reproductive techniques and holistic EASTERN medicine....to no avail.
I approached Mr. Ramsey Clarke, FORMER US ATTORNEY, head of INTERNATIONAL ANSWER and the CHRIST, and told him of our conceiving problems.
He looked me in the eyes and put his hand on my head and said: "Fear not my child, just as the lord hath put flesh into Mary's womb, so too shall he upon thee, my blessed son. For I have sent ye a savior, in the form of an Internatiol ANSWER guru, Ramsey Clarke, and surely ye shall trust in he....Like the lord, he looks out for all people of peace and love, such as POL POT, Faurisson, Milosevic, Kim Il Jung and Arafat, and fights the forces of Satan on earth in the form of Amerikkaaa....Just as the lord has blessed the third world with these holy despots, so to shalll ye be blessed with fruit of the womb!"
Mr. Clarke then closed his eyes and held my hand and shouted "Be abundant in your childbirth, for i am the Lord, Ramsey Clarke". That evening I went home and my wife announced that she was pregnant with quadruplets. Out of repsect we named the children Ramsey, Clarke, Saddaam and Pol Pot Jackson. We have since had 7 more kids and have sent each to Jihad camps in Algeria and Sudan as Mr. Clarke advised us.
I just wish that everyone else could see the light as I had and recognize that the trutt and the eternal light of salvation, the path of justice and holiness circles thru the path of our savior, the eternal Christ, Ramsey C. Clarke.
For more information on Messiah, Ramsey C. Clarke and the eternal kingdom of heaven, please visit
http://www.InternationalAnswer.org Take a close look and there is something downright suspicious about former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, now the darling of certain sectors of the radical left. His journey has taken him from the heights of federal power to outer orbits of the political fringe. In the process, he has seemingly transformed from a shill for the most corrupt elements of the US elites to a shill for any foreign despot who claims to oppose the US elites. Who is Ramsey Clark really working for?
Dynasty of Mediocrity
Ramsey Clark was born to power. In 1945, the Clark family made its leap from Dallas to DC when Ramsey's dad Tom Clark, a lobbyist for Texas oil interests, was appointed Attorney General by President Harry Truman. In his Texas days, the politically ambitious elder Clark was cultivated as a useful connection by New Orleans mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello, and many feared Clark's new job would afford organized crime access to higher levels of power.
AG Clark was repeatedly mired in corruption scandals. In 1945, he was accused of taking a bribe to fix a war profiteering case. In 1947, after he had four convicted Chicago mob bosses sprung from prison before their terms were complete, Congress appointed a committee to investigate--and was effectively roadblocked by Tom's refusal to hand over parole records.
Truman admitted to a biographer that "Tom Clark was my biggest mistake." But he insisted: "It isn't so much that he's a bad man. It's just that he's such a dumb son of a bitch."
AG Tom Clark played along with the post-war anti-communist hysteria, approving federal wiretaps on Alger Hiss, the State Department official accused being a Soviet mole. In 1949, he moved over to the Supreme Court. Carlos Marcello biographer John Davis asserts that the kingpin continued to funnel money to Clark when he sat on the high court.
Tom stepped down from the high court when young Ramsey was appointed attorney general by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Ramsey was likely appointed precisely because he was Tom's son. And not because LBJ was impressed with Tom, but just the opposite: Johnson knew that Ramsey's appointment would maneuver Tom into stepping down. This cleared the way for the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, a comparative moral and intellectual titan who was strategic to the White House's effort to buy peace with the civil rights movement.
AG Ramsey got into a famous showdown with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover when he attempted to block the Director's wiretaps of Martin Luther King Jr.--apparently the first stirrings of Ramsey's conscience. Hoover, considering Clark a spineless "jellyfish," went over his head and ordered the wiretaps without the AG's approval. However, Clark later told Curt Gentry, author of a critical biography of Hoover, that the FBI director had "very strong human qualities" and "was not at all evil by any means. He really believed deeply in integrity, as he defined it, as he saw it."
Despite his unwillingness to approve the snooping on King (who, after all, had been a guest at the Kennedy White House), Clark was complicit with Hoover's COINTELPRO. Following the 1967 riots in Newark and Detroit, he directed the FBI to investigate whether the unrest was the result of some "scheme or conspiracy." He instructed Hoover to develop "sources or informants in black nationalist organizations, SNCC and other less publicized groups." The result was Hoover's extensive "ghetto informant program."
In 1968, Clark prosecuted Dr. Benjamin Spock for advocating draft resistance. "As late as 1968, while campaigning for Lyndon Johnson in Wisconsin, Clark was shouting at anti-war protesters to take their grievances to Hanoi rather than Washington," wrote John B. Judis in a 1991 expose on Clark in The New Republic.
Clark also dutifully backed the official findings that Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan each acted alone in the assassination of the Kennedy brothers.
But when LBJ lost in '68, Clark was iced from his farewell luncheon. The humiliated White House isolated him as King's Resurrection City protesters occupied the DC mall and Republican candidate Richard Nixon baited the AG for undermining "law and order." He had become a convenient whipping boy for both parties.
Leftward, Ho
An embittered casualty of the '60s, Clark assumed a leftist posture after leaving the Justice Department. He became the lawyer for anti-war protestor Philip Berrigan, headed a private probe into the FBI killings of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, and travelled to Vietnam to condemn the bombing.
In a 1974 bid for Senate in New York, he played the centrist in the Democratic primary, with Bella Abzug on the left and Daniel Moynihan on the right. Moynihan won. Clark, now 46, appeared to burn his bridges with the establishment at this point.
In June 1980, with America mesmerized by the Iran hostage crisis, he joined a forum on "Crimes of America" in Tehran--the first of many such junkets. The '80s saw him globetrotting to schmooze with any dictator who happened to be on the White House shit-list. After the US bombing of Libya in 1986, he met with Col. Moammar Qadaffi in Tripoli. He went to Grenada to advise Bernard and Phyllis Coard, leaders of the clique accused of murdering Maurice Bishop, who were facing treason charges.
Things started to smell really fishy in 1989, when Clark represented ultra-right cult-master Lyndon LaRouche and six cohorts on conspiracy and mail fraud charges. The LaRouchies had been bilking their naive followers of their savings by getting them to cough up their credit card numbers. Clark (who had been silent when the real COINTELPRO was conducted under his watch at the Justice Department) now charged that the LaRouche case was an "outgrowth" of COINTELPRO. He said the case was manufactured by LaRouche's "powerful enemies within the establishment" who targeted the cult because of its crusade "to combat the traffic in so-called 'recreational drugs'...and the practice of usury."
Clark was echoing the standard line of the LaRouche organization, which paradoxically pleads government persecution while boasting of its connections to the intelligence establishment (uniquely merging paranoia with delusions of grandeur). In fact, the cult has exchanged information with the FBI, and farmed out its "intelligence" services to Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega. LaRouche's 1970s campaigns for a "War on Drugs" and space-based missile defense eerily predicted Reagan-era programs.
Clark couldn't keep his client from a conviction and brief prison term. But Clark's relationship with LaRouche went beyond legal representation to actual advocacy. Researcher Chip Berlet, a watchdog on radical right groups, told Judis that Clark's brief was a "political polemic."
In June 1990, a LaRouche front organization, the Schiller Institute, flew Clark to a cult-organized conference in Copenhagen. His speech there claimed the US government had moved against LaRouche because he was "a danger to the system," and decried that he was a victim of "vilification." The speech was printed in full by the LaRouchie New Federalist propaganda rag.
Clark also represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly vacationer who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986.
Another Clark client was Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia (where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistence fighters and Jews), who was being deported from the US to the USSR to face war crimes charges. Clark again lost the case, but again went to bat for his client in the public arena, questioning the need to prosecute Nazis "forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed."
The Devil's Pact
In August 1990, two months after his return from the LaRouche conference in Copenhagen, with US troops mobilizing to Saudi Arabia, Clark accepted an invitation to lead the National Coalition to Stop US Intervention in the Middle East. This invitation had been extended by members of an orthodox Stalinist sect, the Workers World Party (WWP). Clark had finally found a new home. The Clark-WWP alliance has lasted to this day.
A brief look at the doctrinaire sect's history: WWP is the brainchild of Sam Marcy, intellectual guru at the party's helm until his death in 1998. In 1956, Marcy led the faction in the Socialist Workers Party that supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary, attacking the popular uprising and general strike there as "counter-revolutionary." In 1959, the Marcy clique broke from the Trotskyist SWP to found the more Stalinist WWP. The new group wasted little time in cheering on the brutal Chinese repression of the indigenous culture in Tibet that year (which sent the Dalai Lama and 80,000 refugees fleeing into exile).
Vying with SWP and other parties for top dog position on the radical left, WWP always maintained a front group to suck in neophytes. During the Vietnam era this was Youth Against War & Fascism (YAWF). In the Reagan-Bush era it was People's Anti-War Mobilization (PAM)--which would be the operative group in the National Coalition in 1990.
With glasnost, WWP supported the Kremlin hard-liners who resisted Gorbachev's reforms and disarmament moves. Insisting that China remained a "workers state," WWP supported Deng Xiaoping in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, again attacking the protesting students and workers as "counter-revolutionaries." In 1991, WWP supported the KGB coup against Gorbachev.
Yet WWP also wooed the Democratic party, supporting Jesse Jackson's presidential bid in 1984. In New York, WWP made alliances with the left wing of the Democrats to establish a foothold in key trade unions.
WWP cadre Gavriella Gemma became a secretary in Clark's New York law office in 1977. In his New Republic piece, Judis suggests that Clark fell under her spell and was won over to the WWP. When David McReynolds of the War Resisters League met with Clark in 1990 to warn him that WWP was "using him," Clark refused to listen, constantly referring to what "Gavriella said."
With Clark as the figurehead and PAM/WWP at the helm, the National Coalition provoked a split in the movement against Operation Desert Storm through its refusal to condemn Saddam Hussein or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The other established anti-war groups (War Resisters League, CISPES, SANE/Freeze, National Organization for Women, etc.) formed the rival National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, which condemned both Bush and Saddam. Soft-peddling their pro-Saddam line, WWP's National Coalition won endorsements from celebrities like Spike Lee and Casey Kasem, sucking in numbers even after the split. The two groups held separate marches on Washington in January 1991, allowing the media to portray a divided movement.
WWP went to extreme lengths to maintain control of the National Coalition. At an April 1991 protest in New York City, WWP thugs attacked a Lower East Side squatter contingent and ejected them from the rally for refusing to take down their unapproved homemade banners. WWPers then called in the police and had the squatters arrested (SHADOW April/May 1991).
In November 1990, Clark flew to Baghdad to meet with Saddam, who allowed him to return with a few hostages. In February, with the bombs falling, Clark was in Basra, Iraq's southern port, witnessing the destruction. But his consistent failure to complain about Saddam's regime made it clear he was there at its invitation.
With Clark's name-recognition and homespun, avuncular image, WWP had the opportunity to form a new front group to win over naive liberals. This was the International Action Center (IAC), which remains the top vehicle for Clark's ego and WWP's play for hegemony over the fragmented remnants of the left.
IAC/WWP's politics went from bad to worse as Yugoslavia descended into chaos. It soon became obvious that Clark's legal work now closely followed the WWP line. In 1992, Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, was served with federal subpoenas when he touched down in New York for UN meetings. The National Organization for Women and the Center for Constitutional Rights, acting on behalf of Bosnian refugee women, were charging him with ordering mass rape and war crimes. Clark, of course, immediately came forward to represent Karadzic. Clark also made junkets to Serb-occupied Bosnia to schmooze with Karadzic (as did various Russian neo-fascists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky).
International Action Center leaflets engaged in blatant historical revisionism over Serb war crimes, portraying them as lies perpetrated by an imperialist conspiracy.
"What about all those reports of 'Serbian atrocities'?" asked an IAC leaflet in 1993, and then answered its own question: "Before the bombs can be dropped the lies must be told." It then went on to cite fabricated atrocities which the Kuwaiti regime's paid PR hacks had attributed to the Iraqi occupation forces, without offering a shred of evidence that the reports of Serb rape camps and "ethnic cleansing" were similarly fabricated. Note the subtly evil propaganda. Opposing NATO bombing is one thing. Calling the reports of mass rape and ethnic cleansing "lies" is quite another. This "anti-war" propaganda is on the same repugnant level as right-wing Holocaust Revisionism.
IAC/WWP embraces what is now called in Europe the "Red-Brown Alliance"--the notion of a left-fascist alliance against the West. This alliance is most advanced in Russia where neo-Stalinists and neo-Czarists have joined to oppose Yeltsin (seen as a stooge of the West). In an echo of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, former communists and anarchists in Russia now work with figures like Zhirinovsky, who have themselves sought alliances with German neo-Nazis. Like Clark and WWP, these Russian extremists have avidly rooted for the Serb armies throughout the wars in former Yugoslavia.
The "Red-Brown Alliance" was seen on the streets of New York during the 1999 NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia, when Clark led rallies which brought WWP communists together with right-wing nationalists and Orthodox priests from the Serb immigrant community. Serbian flags were proudly waved at these New York rallies, while meetings at IAC's 14th Street offices degenerated into mass chants of "Serbia! Serbia! Serbia!" This at a time when Serbian police and paramilitaries were forcing 800,000 Albanian refugees to flee their homes in Kosovo at gunpoint. Again, WRL and other anti-war groups broke away to form their own coalition that rejected both NATO's bombing and Serbian aggression against the Kosovo Albanians. But this time it was only IAC/WWP which held a national rally in DC.
In October 1999, Clark met with Yugoslavia's President Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, and said everything the dictator wanted to hear. Milosevic, by then facing war crimes charges before the UN tribunal, called his guest "brave, objective, and moral."
The case against Radovan Karadzic languished since the UN launched war crimes charges against him, forcing him into hiding in Serbia. Clark, meanwhile, represented a Rwandan Hutu militiaman fighting his extradition from the US back to Rwanda to face genocide charges. The WWP line simultaneously (and predictably) tilted to the genocidal Hutu militias as the UN wrote up war crime charges against their leaders for ordering the slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians in 1994.
What is Ramsey Clark: dupe, kook or spook? Has a well-intentioned but none-too-bright Clark been duped by the WWP cadre? Or has his reasoning become unhinged for reasons of personal psychology? Or, is he a deep-cover spook, whose real Devil's pact is with sinister elements of the US intelligence community, his mission to divide and discredit any resistance to Washington's war moves?
shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm