Terry Conway from Socialist Resistance talked to Michael Letwin from New York City Labour against the War (NYCLAW) in London on April 3. Michael, together with Anthony Arnove (anti-war activist and editor of Pluto Press 's Iraq Under Siege) was in Britain for a tour organised by Americans against the War and spoke at a number of public meetings in London.
TC: What 's your impression of the differences and similarities in the attitude to the war here and in the US?
ML: I think the population here is much more anti-war than in the United States. There are millions of Americans who are against the war and have been coming out to demonstrate especially in the last 6 months. On Feb 15 we had very large marches across the country. But overall views are much more divided than in Britain where, not withstanding the polls, it seems like almost everyone is against the war. You are subject to a lot of patriotic barrage here but it seems to be less effective than it is in the US.
TC: We didn 't have September 11
ML: That 's a lot of it and politically it 's more to the left in general. The US movement is more of an echo of the movement in Britain - it's not as large and it is more susceptible to the argument that supporting our troops means supporting the war. Then there 's the notion of pay back for 9/11 though there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. One similarity is that this antiwar movement in the States in much more diverse than any previous organised antiwar movement: racially and ethnically, as yours is.
On the trade union front things have changed. Officially at least, many British unions have been in the lead of anti-war activities for a while. In the US, groups like New York City Labour Against the War were, until recently, a very small minority within U.S. labour. Many people who felt the same way, especially trade union officials kept quiet.
Only in the last 6 months, as the movement has exploded internationally and at home, have more U.S. unions [have] been passing anti-war resolutions. Despite the importance of those resolutions, however, they have not been accompanied by the kind of direct industrial action needed to stop the war.
TC: There was some limited, symbolic action here the day war broke out here, mainly in education. I think it was mainly the students and school students who gave workers the confidence to say, "Well if they are going to do it, then we can too". The general anti-war climate obviously helped - I have not heard of anyone being victimised. I assume management didn 't want to get into that.
But certainly there was still more talk than action.
ML: But in the US, there 's not even talk. Yet, what is interesting is not that so little has been done, but that so much has. A year and a half ago, we were very few union voices speaking out, whereas now, when you hear U.S. labour voices talking about the war, they are opposed.
That 's an amazing thing in a country where the labour movement officialdom has always supported American imperialism. Even right after the war began, the antiwar movement was able to put 1/4 million people on the streets of New York.
New York City is the greatest point of anti-war resistance, which is important because it is where 9/11 occurred - and we have an anti-war majority. There is virtually no black support for the war and Latino support is also much lower than in the overall population.
The big question for the movement is how to actually bring the war to a halt.
It 's easy to figure out abstractly all kinds of things you can do, but getting people to that point is a whole different thing -- especially since the labour movement in the United States is very weak, both numerically and politically.
So how do you get from symbolic resistance to effective resistance? Clearly it is essential to connect issues at home and abroad, which are two sides of the same coin. But it 's difficult in a country where unions are barely able to defend people 's most immediate needs, let alone resist this entire assault represented by the war.
Still, it 's encouraging and amazing that we have this big new movement. It 's the biggest thing since Vietnam and in some ways beyond that - certainly earlier in the process and more diverse. On the other hand, there are feelings of frustration and powerlessness. What does the movement amount to if this war continues? I hope and expect that as the war drags on, there will be greater opposition both within the military and at home, but today that 's a hope and not yet a reality.
TC: To what extent would it be useful to build links between anti-war unions or activists in particular industrial sectors?
ML: People in the US are anxious to hear speakers from Britain, just as people here are keen to hear Americans. Each of us is told that the other supports the war and we are here to say that this isn 't so.
In January, we launched US Labour Against the War, which reflects the growing number of labour organisations taking anti-war positions - and this has helped make some international contacts. But the difficulties of getting action on the ground won 't be solved primarily by creating organisational links at the top.
The bottom line is whether labour organisations are organising their own members against both the war abroad and the war at home. Iraqi and working class American and British kids are being killed. At home, working people are paying the economic cost. They are suffering the severe attack on civil liberties and on immigrant rights. There will be further terrorist blowback because of this war.
TC: Sure but I think they can also give people confidence. 30 million people marching on February 15 across the world was a real inspiration. And where it has been possible to co-ordinate strike action, it helps to argue with your work mates - come out and be part of something that is happening in x different countries.
ML: Of course that 's true and if I didn 't believe that I wouldn 't be here. On our listserv, we send out information about labour action being taken across the globe for precisely that reason. But to even the most advanced, most class-conscious American workers, it doesn 't mean much to know that there is an antiwar general strike today in Greece. They would still regard that as like Mars.
So, we need to organise people to take even the most minimal action where they are. It won 't start with a general strike. I 'd be happy if we could do even a one-minute strike in the United States. We have to crawl before we can walk or run.
Things can shift and change very quickly. But in the US, we are talking about a very thin layer of anti-war organisers within a very weak labour movement. We are not going to be having strikes about war in Iraq when people aren 't striking about budget cuts or layoffs at home.
Formal labour anti-war resolutions create room to raise these issues in a legitimate way. NYCLAW can more easily go to a demonstration against hospital cuts with a banner that says NYCLAW - Stop the Cuts, Stop the War and make the connections.
TC: To what extent is there a national co-ordination of the antiwar movement?
ML: The anti-war movement in the States is not nearly as unified as it is here, where the STW coalition is an umbrella that embraces many different tendencies and groups. That 's partly because of size and partly political tradition. In the US, there are 3 different national coalitions. ANSWER is the most left wing. United for Peace and Justice is the next one over. The most conservative, as you can tell from its name - is Win Without War. This is more of a virtual, on-line organisation focused mainly on lobbying and fundraising, which they do quite amazingly. Much as I disagree with their slogan, I 'm pleased that they are sending lots of messages to Congress.
But I won 't march under their slogan, which implies that we share a common interest with the U.S. government in targeting Saddam Hussein. The primary threat to the world is not Saddam - its
George Bush and the people he represents.
The mainstream media encourages red baiting, against the antiwar left, which, unfortunately, is echoed by some of the more conservative elements in the movement.
NYCLAW is not a political party and includes many different groups and individuals. But we have a basically anti-imperialist view of the war and how to build a movement. We try to work with people regardless of their analysis, who are opposed to the war and especially in grass roots communities, communities of colour, working class communities. We push for unity between the different coalitions around specific events.
Unfortunately, we face a certain amount of sectarian resistance from the right.
In terms of unity, the national coalitions typically lag behind the grass roots. The grass roots are saying "why do we have to have these different coalitions" or "why can 't they work together"?
There need to be many different ways in which people can express opposition to the war. There are people that will come to a demonstration, there are people who will do direct action or civil disobedience and I hope that there are people that will resist within the military -- as three British soldiers did this week, and there are people that will take industrial action -- as did the Motherwell train drivers.
Although the latter two are most difficult to achieve, they are ultimately the most important to bring the war to an end.