Everyone can bring their own signs and banners, with their own political slogans, so long as we can unite in opposition to the shooting war. There was no objective political reason why the two coalitions could not have agreed to march in January at the same location and on the same date. There is no reason why agreement for united actions cannot be reached for the future. Such an agreement will significantly strengthen the overall movement against Bush's policies.
In fact the entire spectrum of antiwar opinion was represented in Washington on both January 19 and 26. The 26th tended to have more American flags and signs asserting that would have been better if Bush had "let sanctions work". Most of the speakers expressed this point of view. But the call for sanctions instead of a shooting war was heard on the 19th as well. In fact, Jesse Jackson, who initially supported Bush's decision to send troops to the Mideast and now expresses a prosanctions viewpoint, spoke at both demonstrations. Opponents of sanctions and condemning Iraq made their presence felt 1991 on the 26th as well as on the 19th.
The one noticeable difference between the two actions was the presence on the 19th of significant Black and other minority contingents, including a particularly impressive group of several hundred students from Howard University in Washington DC. This gave the 19th a somewhat different character not only from the 26th but also from previous antiwar demonstrations in the US where Black representation has been noticeably weak. The Coalition chose to focus on this problem when it selected Martin Luther King day holiday weekend for its action.
Strong antiwar sentiment among Black people
There is certainly far more antiwar sentiment, and vocal antiwar sentiment, in the Black community than in the US population as a whole. The January 25 New York Times reported a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted January 17-20. Whites favored Bush's military action by 4-1, while Blacks were evenly split on the question. This reflects the lower overall confidence that Blacks have in US govemment policies as well as a specific understanding in the Black community that their youth will inevitably pay the heaviest price in this war.
Blacks make up about 12% of the US population. But they represent nearly 25% of US forces in the Gulf - and an even larger percentage of the ground combat troops that will bear the largest burden of the fighting. The acute unemployment and poverty in the Black community means that joining the army is the only real choice open to many Black youth — other than entering into the dead-end world of drugs and prison.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), the largest feminist organization in the US, which has been responsible for several massive demonstrations in defense of abortion rights in the US over the past few years, endorsed January 26. It put out a button saying simply, "Women against war", which was visible everywhere during the demonstration. NOW's participation in the January 26th coalition represented an important step both for the women's movement and the fight against the war.
There have also been protests against a shooting war from some elements in the US labor movement. Union contingents were visible on both the 19th and 26th. The January 11 New York Times reported that hundreds of union leaders around the country were coming out against the danger of war because it would be "fought by the children of blue-collar workers". . This stands in marked contrast to what happened during Vietnam when the main leaders of organized labor in the US lined up behind Washington's war effort. It was only at the very end of that war — when antiwar sentiment was clearly becoming
the overwhelming majority viewpoint in the country - that this labor "consensus" began to break down.
Before Bush's war actually started a number of unions issued a letter urging that sanctions be given more time to work. With the actual commencement of hostilities it appears that there has been a significant retreat - on the part of the mainstream union bureaucracy - from even such mild protests. But the issue has still become a legitimate one for discussion among the rank and file. The same forces that can erode Bush's support within the population as a whole will affect organized labor. It may well be possible to bring US unions into the antiwar movement in a much bigger way — and in a much shorter time - than during previous wars.
At this point both the Campaign for Peace and the Coalition to Stop US intervention are continuing their efforts. Plans for an ongoing series of actions are taking shape. Every week brings a new round of demonstrations and protests. Both national groupings are calling for local actions to take place on February 15 and 16.
Student antiwar movement developing
The Coalition is also organizing a national conference over the weekend of February 9/10. The Campaign is planning its own national meeting on February 23. In addition, students have begun organizing on a national scale. In Chicago on January 19 a delegated national conference of around 200, representing 50-60 campuses, was held. It formed the National Network of Campuses Against the War. On January 27, the day after the big Washington march, students from around the country gathered in that city for a mass meeting of nearly 2000. It called for a day of student protests on February 21 and established the National Student and Youth Campaign for Peace in the Mid-east.
The January 26 mobilization organized by the Campaign for Peace was certainly larger and more representative geographically than January 19. But January 19 was impressive nonetheless. And the real ability of the January 19 Coalition to establish links with forces in the Black and Latino communities indicates that it, along with the Campaign, will continue to play an important role in building a movement against the war in the US.
It is certainly unclear at this point what the form and leadership of that movement will be given the diverse political and organizational conceptions that are being widely debated. In the period leading up to the January demonstrations many antiwar activists, groups and local coalitions refused to line up exclusively with either of the two national leadership bodies. This sentiment for unity was widespread, and given the inability to bring about a convergence around a single date, many
GULF WAR endorsed and/or attended both demonstrations.
At this point it is hard to see how the Campaign for Peace will be able to really unite the antiwar forces around its leadership if it continues to insist on a statement condemning Iraq as a basis for membership - a statement that many, perhaps even most, of those active in organizing the movement do not agree with. But it is even more difficult to see how the Coalition can provide an adequate leadership to unite the movement given its completely bureaucratic structure. Lies, damn