This article inaugurates a new series, "Waging Peace," covering the movement that is emerging across America--in union halls, in churches, on campuses, on the streets, even in some corporate and government quarters--to oppose war on Iraq.
   --The Editors

The limited appeal of antiwar activity within unions is not only the responsibility of labor's cautious leadership, but also of the peace movement in general and of some peace activists within labor, who have made a few strategic missteps. Many of the labor activists in the forefront of the Iraq peace movement are the same people who unsuccessfully tried to jump-start a similar movement in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. Seriously misreading the sentiment of mainstream labor, which believed that at least some sort of limited US military response was in order, these mostly white-collar and ideologically left activists tried to drum up a movement to oppose intervention in Afghanistan. On September 27, 2001--just two weeks after the attacks and while the national and New York AFL-CIO were still actively mourning the death of hundreds of members in them--activists from NYCLAW, for example, had already issued their first public statement opposing any sort of US military action.

"This was really way off base," says a politically progressive AFL official close to John Sweeney. "No matter what one's personal political opinion, you really had to be out in left field to not understand the angry patriotism that was rippling through labor. We had just lost something like 500 guys, and no one was in the mood to go light candles at a peace vigil."

NYCLAW's Letwin concedes that the rushed September 27 peace statement by his group was looked on as "tainted" because of its timing. But, he argues, "I think that along with a lot of union leadership, a lot of the grassroots saw that as a good statement. They were saying to themselves, 'I'm not going to sign it, but I'm glad someone is out there saying these things.'"

Maybe, but in any case, many at the top of the federation agree that the Iraq situation is very different from Afghanistan, and they recognize that there is now a lot more visible and vocal discomfort with and opposition to the White House's overseas plans. "Also, the elections are now over," says the federation official. "And if the Democrats take a harder line against the war than they have so far, labor will be more willing to do the same. But that leaves open the question of just what peace movement we are comfortable being part of."

That's a reference to discomfort with those currently orchestrating some of the highest-profile antiwar protests. While demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco brought out scores of thousands with an eclectic range of politics, the protests were organized and the podium dominated by a small, sectarian Stalinist group, the Workers World Party. Consequently, while much of the demonstration rhetoric was against the war, it was also tinged with an anti-Americanism and loaded down with ancillary issues ranging from support for convicted murderers Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown to sometimes paranoid condemnations of Zionism that in no way resonate with the bulk of organized labor. No doubt the rally crowds were peppered with hundreds, if not thousands, of union members and activists, but there was no institutional representation of Big Labor, as there has been at numerous antiglobalization events of the past few years.

"John Sweeney is no George Meany," says the AFL official, referring to former federation president Meany's aggressive support for the Vietnam War. And he notes that significant participation by labor in the peace movement would, indeed, aid in broadening and mainstreaming the antiwar message, pushing some of the sectarians to the side. But, he added, that moment is not yet upon us. "It's not at all unthinkable that in the weeks to come we will see Sweeney speaking out more against the war. But you can be sure he isn't going to be speaking from the same stage as the Workers World Party."

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.