RW ONLINE: Now More than Ever: Not In Our Name\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nNow More than Ever: Not In Our Name!\r\n<\/p>
Revolutionary Worker #1182, January 12, 2002<\/i>, posted at rwor.org<\/p>\r\n<\/i>
We say NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate \r\nany inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We \r\nextend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will \r\nshow our solidarity in word and deed.\"<\/p>\r\n
From the \"Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience\"<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
In the first days after September 11, when President George W. Bush went to \r\nthe smoking ruins of the World Trade Center and--in the name of the \r\nvictims--declared a \"new crusade\";<\/p>\r\n
When the politicians and media--in the name of justice--fanned the flames of \r\nvengeance;<\/p>\r\n
When police--in the name of safety--pulled young Muslim men off of busses and \r\ntrains, or raided their homes in the dead of night, and then held them in secret \r\nfor months;<\/p>\r\n
When Congressmen--in the name of freedom--rushed to pass laws which took away \r\nthe people's rights;<\/p>\r\n
When the deafening whine of the jets bombing Afghanistan--in the name of \r\nprotection--drowned out the voices of questioning and critical thought;<\/p>\r\n
At just that point, in those first crazy painful days, the parents of a young \r\nPuerto Rican man who perished in the towers spoke up, and said:<\/p>\r\n
\"Not in our name.\"<\/p>\r\n
Very simple, it seemed. And yet...powerful. Powerful enough to take root and \r\nbegin to spread, far beyond those first courageous relatives of the victims, far \r\nbeyond the wounded ashen streets of New York City, far beyond even the United \r\nStates.<\/p>\r\n
Four words, and they stripped the cloak of legitimacy from the program of \r\nBush & Co., revealing the naked grab for power that lay beneath it. They \r\nchallenged the lie that this new program was in the interests of the American \r\npeople. They reached out to the people of the world, signaling that \"There is \r\nopposition, right here in America, to what is being done in our name, and we \r\nwill rally and we will stop it.\"<\/p>\r\n
A movement grew up around those four words.<\/p>\r\n
A statement of conscience ran in newspapers around the country and around the \r\nworld--a powerful call to resist the whole trajectory of war and repression. And \r\nthe signatures of artists and intellectuals and clergy and activists were \r\nemblazoned on a bold background that spelled out... NOT IN OUR NAME.<\/p>\r\n
A pledge of resistance was written--an anthem, almost -- and then it was \r\ntaken up and recited in unison, in gatherings large and small around the \r\ncountry, and the refrain was... NOT IN OUR NAME.<\/p>\r\n
A day of resistance was organized, when tens and tens of thousands gathered \r\nin cities across the country, kicking off a revitalized antiwar movement and \r\nlinking it to opposing the repression against immigrants and the stripping away \r\nof rights. And here again the voices called out and the posters read... NOT IN \r\nOUR NAME.<\/p>\r\n
A movement of opposition, to war and repression, had emerged. And its \r\nwatchword was--and is-- NOT IN OUR NAME.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
TIME TO STEP ASIDE?<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
But now some say that this slogan's time has come and gone. They say that if \r\nthe movement really wants to move masses, if it really wants to succeed <\/i>, \r\nit must take a different tack. In the words of an organizer for the Win Without \r\nWar coalition, something is needed that will speak to \"the millions of people \r\nwho have concerns and fears but have not had an outlet for them\"; something that \r\nwill force Bush to \"pause.\"*<\/b> \r\n<\/p>\r\n
In order to \"build \r\nbroad support,\" we are now told, the movement should \"accept `the valid U.S. \r\nand UN objective of disarming Saddam Hussein,' \" but should argue that a \r\n\"preemptive military invasion of Iraq\" is the wrong way to do that and that we \r\nshould instead support \"letting the UN inspectors do their jobs.\" And this new \r\napproach implicitly leaves open the question of support for a U.S. invasion of \r\nIraq that has a UN endorsement.<\/p>\r\n
So... does <\/i>the movement need a new direction in order to speak to the \r\n\"concerns and fears\" of millions? Must it concede to Bush's stated goal of \r\ndisarming Iraq? Will doing so enable us to form a movement that will prevent \r\nthis war?<\/p>\r\n
The first thing we must ask is whether, in fact, the basic premise of this \r\nnew approach is true. Does the Saddam Hussein regime pose a special threat to \r\nthe people of the world? Is this threat so grave that extraordinary measures \r\nmust be taken to disarm his government--measures that already involve the slow \r\ndeath of thousands a month from sanctions and that, in the event of war, will \r\ncause the slaughter of tens of thousands more? Can intervention by the United \r\nStates armed forces do anything positive for the people of Iraq?<\/p>\r\n
Please. Everybody let's stop and think for one minute. There is but one \r\ngovernment on this planet that wields more destructive power than all the rest \r\nof the world combined. There is but one government on this planet that has used \r\nnuclear weapons--not once, but twice. There is but one government on this planet \r\nthat made \"massive retaliation\" with nuclear weapons its stated policy for war \r\nfor decades, that has threatened to use such weapons in several different crises \r\nover the years, and that to this day claims the right to strike first against \r\nany country that threatens their interests. There is but one government on this \r\nplanet that now threatens to use nuclear weapons in the context of a U.S.-Iraq \r\nwar.<\/p>\r\n
That government, of course, is the United States. Now this government claims \r\nthat the greatest threat to the world's people comes from a vanquished prostrate \r\nnation that may <\/i>be attempting to gain nuclear capability.<\/p>\r\n
The whole notion turns reality on its head. Yet Bush has been trying to force \r\nthis down the throat of the world in order to justify what will be a devastating \r\nwar on Iraq and a brutal leap in the imposition of American power on the whole \r\nworld. For people in the antiwar movement to give any credence at all to such a \r\nnotion will only confuse the tens of millions who will be awakening to political \r\nlife in the next few weeks and who, even if they initially support the war, will \r\nalso have their questions.<\/p>\r\n
Why is the U.S. power structure pressing for \"regime change\" in Iraq? The \r\nU.S. government is on a predatory <\/i>mission--they are seeking to impose \r\ntheir political will and their control over the people and resources of \r\nIraq--and to use that control as a springboard for recasting the Middle East and \r\nas a springboard to create more favorable conditions for exploiting the people \r\nand resources of the whole world. And no good can come of it.<\/i><\/p>\r\n
It is an unjust, immoral and illegitimate mission. All their policies, \r\nscenarios, and fallback plans are predicated on the threat of massive force. All \r\ntheir talk of bringing \"democracy\" and \"liberation\" to Iraq is a lie. They will \r\nbring great destruction and suffering, and any alliances they make with forces \r\nin Iraq are for the sole purpose of carrying out this predatory agenda. And it \r\nwill not stop with Iraq. A victory in Iraq will only embolden them to press \r\nahead in other countries and regions of the world.<\/p>\r\n
Certainly the antiwar movement must speak to millions. It must deal with the \r\nterms being used by the powers-that-be to justify the war. But that does not \r\nmean it should accept <\/i>those terms. In the words of RCP Chairman Bob \r\nAvakian, \"You get a hearing by telling the truth. You get a hearing by bringing \r\nout the reality as sharply as you can.\" We believe that the antiwar movement \r\nneeds to address these terms--the hollow justifications and excuses--expose the \r\nfallacy at their base, and walk people through to see the real <\/i>terms of \r\nthings, and their real <\/i>interests.<\/p>\r\n
Because such an awful thing is shaping up, because the consequences will be \r\nhorrific and events are unfolding rapidly--people from many political viewpoints \r\nare agonizing over how to reach millions of people, how to influence policy, and \r\nhow to stop war.<\/p>\r\n
People really need to think critically about the notion that we should rally \r\npeople around \"letting the UN inspectors do their jobs.\" Not only is this whole \r\nproject a gross violation of the sovereignty of Iraq, but people need to \r\nunderstand that these inspections are designed <\/i>to fail. The U.S. has \r\ninsisted on terms so onerous and has brought so much pressure to bear on the \r\ninspectors themselves precisely in order to create a \"failure\" and provide a \r\npretext for them to get international backing for their war.<\/p>\r\n
What will happen if people are not prepared for this kind of \"failure\" of the \r\ninspections? If the U.S. suddenly manufactures \"proof\" (as it manufactured proof \r\nin the first Gulf war that \"the Iraqi army had murdered babies in incubators in \r\nKuwait\"--only to have it revealed much later that the whole thing was a \r\nfabrication by a Republican-connected public relations outfit). Those who have \r\naccepted Bush's terms about the \"threat of Saddam Hussein\" will watch the unity \r\nthey have built crumble in the face of an unjust war.<\/p>\r\n
How will people be prepared to respond if some pro-U.S. coup d'etat \"invites\" \r\nU.S. troops to occupy Iraq?<\/p>\r\n
In short, this new direction now being ballyhooed is not a road to preventing \r\nwar but a wrong turn that will lead to a dead-end of silence, passivity and \r\ndespair.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
OR TIME TO STEP IT UP?<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
We cannot afford to go down that road. And we don't have to, either. In fact, \r\none of the problems with this whole new approach is that it purports to fix \r\nsomething that was never broken in the first place.<\/p>\r\n
To be blunt: it's a little bit weird to say that the NION approach does \r\nnot <\/i>speak to millions. Go to the Statement of Conscience <\/i>web site, \r\nand look at the tens of thousands of signatures. Look at the recent publications \r\nof the ad in local papers in Seattle and Madison, Wisconsin--ads that feature \r\nscores and scores of local signers, joining the national signers and taking a \r\nvery bold stand. Scroll down the list of the nearly 40 publications in which \r\nit's run, and the many many more in which it's been referenced. Remember the \r\nperson who wrote in to say that this statement \"provided me with a profound \r\nsense of validation and has given me the courage and vocabulary to express my \r\nviews.\"<\/p>\r\n
Think back to the response of the tens of thousands who took the pledge of \r\nresistance at the NION demonstrations in early October, to the student day in \r\nNovember, to the artistic creations and events sparked by this stand. Look at \r\nthe people--the range of beliefs, of walks of life, of experience--that have \r\nfound an umbrella and a foundation for action in this slogan.<\/p>\r\n
Now tell us again--why is this slogan too narrow to rally millions more?<\/p>\r\n
We understand that, at this point, those opposed to the war in the \r\n\"mainstream\" are influenced by the kind of thinking expressed in the \"win \r\nwithout war\" approach. But there is a minority of millions <\/i>for whom the \r\npolitics of \"not in our name\" expresses their heartfelt rejection of the \r\nwarmongering agenda--and their desire to resist. And it is really crucial that \r\nthis minority of millions <\/i>now take the initiative, press ahead with \r\nindependent political action, build a powerful movement of resistance, and reach \r\nout to win over millions more.<\/p>\r\n
The truth is, NOT IN OUR NAME can speak to and rally millions. Moreover, the \r\nplatform it provides is durable <\/i>: it can give people the backbone to \r\nstand up to the pressure and intimidation that will come with war; the \r\nintellectual tools to cut through the lies and excuses and appeals to narrow \r\ninterests; and the strength from which to aggressively rally the American people \r\nto make common cause with the people of the world.<\/p>\r\n
The Statement of Conscience is a powerful indictment of the injustice that is \r\nbeing carried out, it is a measure of what's right and wrong, and a broad \r\nfoundation for people to unite.<\/p>\r\n
There are people from many points of view who have endorsed and actively \r\ntaken up these \"Not In Our Name\" politics. And they do not all agree with our \r\npoint of view, as expressed in this article. But \"Not in Our Name\" concentrates \r\nan important point of basic agreement that \"people of conscience must take \r\nresponsibility for what their own governments do--we must first of all oppose \r\nthe injustice that is done in our own name.\" And we think this is all the more \r\ntrue when one lives in a country like this one, seeking to impose its will on \r\nthe entire world.<\/p>\r\n
The war now being planned and prepared is NOT in the interests of the \r\npeople of the world, and it is not in the interests of the majority of people in \r\nthe United States.<\/b><\/i> It is this fundamental fact that enables us to reach \r\nout and speak to and mobilize the millions--including the many who will at first \r\ngo along with the government.<\/p>\r\n
How does it help people in this country to put tens of thousands of innocent \r\nIraqis at risk for their lives by massive bombing, destruction of the \r\ninfrastructure, and so on? How will it help the majority of American people if \r\ntheir country is viewed by the rest of the world as trying to grab up Iraq in \r\norder to control its oil? How will it help the majority of American people if \r\ntheir sons and daughters are sent to fight and die on a brutal and unjust \r\nmission? How will it benefit the majority of Americans if the whole world \r\nrecoils at their government's stated willingness to use nuclear weapons in Iraq? \r\nIf everyone sees their country as bullies who have no care for the human life of \r\nmillions of Arab people? How \"safe\" will it be to live in a \"New Roman Empire,\" \r\neven more hated --and hateful--than the old Roman Empire, and just as doomed to \r\ndecline and fall? And how \"free\" will they be as the government grabs new powers \r\nto imprison people without trial, to tap their phones and computers, to track \r\nevery detail of their lives? There is no need to be intimidated by George Bush's \r\n\"high poll ratings\" or to think that we have to give in to his terms. For, quiet \r\nas it's kept, this emperor really does have no clothes, and it is up to us to \r\nshout that out.<\/p>\r\n
It is only by standing up and drawing a clear line between themselves and the \r\ninjustices that are being carried out by their government, in their \r\n<\/i>name--only by casting their lot with the people of the world--that the \r\nmajority of Americans can have a future worth fighting for.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
NOW LET'S UNITE AND STOP THIS THING!<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
We've been sharp in this article--but only because so very very much is at \r\nstake. We realize that a lot of folks have taken up different efforts precisely \r\nout of a deep desire to stop the war. They are searching for the best way to do \r\nthat. A lot of folks think that any<\/i>thing that opposes Bush-- whether the \r\nStatement of Conscience, or the Win Without War petition--helps. We've tried \r\nhere to outline what we think are some serious shortcomings and blind spots in \r\nthat approach, and to underscore again the deep and abiding strengths of the \r\n\"Not in Our Name\" approach--but those differences don't mean that we can't unite \r\nin action, even as we talk things out.<\/p>\r\n
Moreover, there is a need to do much more than has been done up to now. As \r\npromising as this new upsurge has been, it will not be enough to stop the war. \r\nIt must grow. It must take action. And we think that everyone should be open to \r\nnew ideas, new approaches, and new directions...which involves, of course, \r\nsubjecting those ideas to analysis. The point is that all of this debate, \r\ndiscussion and analysis right now must serve taking action to stop the \r\njuggernaut.<\/i><\/p>\r\n
There are challenging days ahead of us. As those days unfold, it is \r\n\"especially important\"--as we said last week--\"that when the people of the world \r\nwatch events, they see that here, in the U.S. itself, there are those who resist \r\nand hate this juggernaut, those who stand with them in the struggle to stop \r\nit--those who call out the injustices perpetrated by their own government and \r\nsay `not in our name.' \"<\/p>\r\n
________________ \r\n<\/p>
Notes: \r\n<\/p>
* Quotes are from articles promoting this \r\napproach: \"The Antiwar Movement Goes Mainstream,\" by Michelle Goldberg in \r\nSalon.com, December 12, and \"Mainstreaming the Antiwar Movement\" by David Corn \r\non The Nation <\/i>website, and from the Win Without War petition.<\/p>\r\n
[Return \r\nto article]<\/p>\r\n
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker \r\nOnline
rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, \r\nMerchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: \r\n773-227-4497
(The RW Online does not currently communicate via email.) \r\n<\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"www.rwor.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A statement of conscience ran in papers around the country and the world. A pledge of resistance was recited by tens and tens of thousands. But now some say that if the movement really wants to move masses, if it really wants to succeed , it must take a different tack.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2003\/01\/rw_online_now_more_than_ever_not_in_our_name.htm","filesize":"17.8 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2003\/01\/25354.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}