Antiwar activists meet to strategize

PITTSBURGH--More than 200 people attended the second annual conference of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations here July 10-12.

Created last year to facilitate unity among different organizations for the purpose of mass protests, the National Assembly has faced the same challenging political situation as the rest of the antiwar movement--that is, the "Obama effect" has produced a widespread feeling that grassroots activism against the wars is superfluous.

Though views expressed ranged from critical support for Obama to sectarian contempt for those who back him, the conference agreed that ending the occupations was only possible with determined struggle from below. To that end, the conference passed an ambitious action plan for the coming year.

The plan includes support for the demonstrations against the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh September 24-25; two weeks of antiwar action culminating in local and regional protests October 17; and a united national/bicoastal demonstration in the spring of 2010. These actions have widely varying levels of support. The G-20 protests already have an active core of organizers behind them, while the prospects for a united spring 2010 demonstration remain quite uncertain.

This year's conference was also open to taking anti-imperialist positions on topics beyond Iraq and Afghanistan--a welcome change from last year's meeting, when this was considered more controversial.

Resolutions in support of Palestinian political prisoners, against the coup in Honduras, and in solidarity with the Haitian struggle against occupation passed handily. The conference also set up a "Free Palestine Working Committee" and declared support for the movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

However, the conference was sharply divided on how to respond to the recent uprising in Iran. Many participants rightly wished to show solidarity with the new mass movement for democracy while firmly rejecting any U.S. or other imperialist intervention. As Ashley Smith of the International Socialist Organization said, "We should oppose any U.S. or Israeli intervention of any sort in Iran. At the same time, however, we should stand in solidarity with the mass movement that has emerged on the streets that has the potential to win liberation for the Iranian masses."

Others--most prominently, supporters of the Workers World Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation--argue that the mass movement in Iran is a merely a cat's paw of the CIA, in the service of imperialism and neoliberalism. Author Phil Wilayto, for instance, derided the uprising as a "yuppie movement."

Unfortunately, the political confusion was so great that the conference had to settle for simply reiterating opposition to imperial intervention, without saying anything about the historic mass revolt.

Another worrying phenomenon was the substantial influence of the so-called "9/11 Truthers." The fact that these conspiracy theorists could be taken seriously has always been a sign of the political weakness of the antiwar movement. In fact, the conference did reject a motion to include "Truther" activities in its action plan--but by a distressingly narrow margin. This reflects a kind of desperation among many genuine activists to find allies for the antiwar movement.

Despite these shortcomings, the National Assembly is making an important attempt to keep the antiwar movement going.