|
America Attacked:
Anti-War Protests
With David Zirin
Washington Peace Center
Friday, Sept. 28, 2001; 4 p.m. EDT
The Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are being
called the single worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush
administration has declared war on terrorism as the country considers
new measures for homeland security. A military build-up continues as
troops, ships and planes prepare for an as yet undisclosed mission.
David Zirin, a co-coordinator of the Washington Peace Center, talked about this weekend's anti-war protests on Friday, Sept. 28 at 4 p.m. EDT.
Several thousand protesters will take to District streets this weekend
as anti-globalization protests have taken a new form as anti-war
rallies. Anti-war actions and other progressive issues are being clearinghoused and partly organized by the Washington Peace Center.
The "Community March and Gathering for Peace" will be held on Sunday, September 30, 2001 at 11 a.m. EDT at Meridian Hill Park at 16th and Euclid St. NW.
Below is the transcript.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
David Zirin: We're planning a very peaceful gathering at Mt. Pleasant Park followed by a march to Sheridan circle which was the site of a hate crime against a vigil of the American Kurdish Information network. It's a march of peace and a march to call on the U.S. government not to turn this tragedy into a war.
Oxford, England:
What might the emerging anti-war movement in the US consider to be an appropriate response (or responses) to the terrorist attacks against the U.S.?
David Zirin: There is tremedous diversity of opinion as to what an alternative might be and that is part of the strength of the new movement. Opinions range from an international court with open evidence against the accused to my own opinion, which is that the best alternative is peace -- that the U.S. does not bomb the countries, the countries will have more time to stabilize. There are actions over the last ten years in the Middle East that have destabilized the region and decreased sanctions and increased debt pressures in these countries. If the U.S. does bomb, then the countries will further destabilize and create a situation where the cycle of violence will continue. This will cause people to thrive upon creating more terrorists.
Alexandria, Va.:
From your website: "We call for U.S. officials to step with trepidation and not retaliate violence with vengeance. Violent tactics employed in 'Tuesday's attacks cannot be used to find the perpetrators. We stand in solidarity with our American-Arab and American-Muslim friends in urging communities to create environments free of racism and religious persecution."
Is this not what President Bush and his administration have been saying and doing in the past two weeks? There have been no carpet-bomb attacks on Kabul, there have been no cruise missiles flying into population centers, and there's obviously been a concerted effort to find out exactly who was behind this massacre of innocent Americans and other nations' citizens so that the guilty can be found and apprehended. It seems to me that you're planning to invade and disrupt the lives of DC-area residents for a cause that's already been served. How do you justify that?
David Zirin: That's a very good question. First of all, I think the Bush administration has actually sent the opposite signal. The rhetoric that has been used has been shocking. When Donald Rumsfeld says we need to prepare for collateral damage, which means innocent people dying, when Dick Cheney says we need to recruit more "unsavory characters," when Congressman Rep. John Cooksey says "anyone with a diaper on their head needs to be pulled over," a response is demanded. I think it is far more disruptive for D.C. residents to live in a city that has very substandard hospitals and schools while billions of dollars are going to the war drive, than us having a march.
Washington, D.C.:
Calls for an "international trial" for the culprits in the 9/11 attacks would essentially mean no greater punishment in the event of a conviction than life in prison, since nearly all conceptions of international law bar capital punishment. Why should the American people accept such a result?
David Zirin: Several family members of people who died in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks have come forward with four simple words concerning war and revenge -- "not in my name." This idea that Sen. Phil Graham of Texas said, "The wages of sin for attacking the U.S. is death" is no answer. So we should be careful about using words like "the American people" are going to demand death.
Arlington, Va.:
How do you propose the U.S. government respond to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and the very real threat of future attacks?
Does your response take into consideration the victims and their families' very justified desire for justice?
David Zirin: Absolutely. What I think we need to be very careful about is trusting the U.S. to exact justice, fairly and correctly on our behalf. There must be vigilence when it comes to trusting the U.S. to act with military force. We must remember the residential buildings that were destroyed in Panama City in "Operation Just Cause" and the bombing three years ago in Sudan that destroyed half of the pharmaceutical medicine supplies for the entire country. The desire for justice is real and the sympathy for those of us in the peace movement have for the victims and their families is very intense. We feel that more U.S. intervention will not produce justice.
Woodley Park, D.C.:
Hello,
What do you hope to accomplish this weekend? There's no war to protest yet. The U.S. government is being deliberate and cautious in formulating a response to the terror attacks. It has already been stated that it will be as much a diplomatic and economic effort as it will a military response. Ample time has been given for innocent civilians to head for the hills (and also unfortunately the terrorists). So, what's to protest about? If we randomly bombed downtown Kabul immediately after the attacks on American soil, I could see your point, but that didn't happen.
Cedar Crest, N.M.:
I would have had a lot more respect for the prostestors if they had just stuck to their chosen issues (IMF/World Bank reform), rather than sieze upon this opportunity to protest a war that is not happening (so far, who has attacked whom?). It seems like you're picking the worst time to criticize U.S. policy, simply because your original intent is somewhat irrelevant right now.
Also, if the U.S. just wanted to strike back in blind vengence, we would have done so around 9/12 or 9/13 with cruise missiles and B-52 raids on Kabul. We didn't. Does that tell you something?
David Zirin: We are trying to prevent a war. We are trying to prevent more Arab, Muslims and South Asians from being harassed and beaten. We are trying to express our civil liberties, our right to speech and assembly which are under attack by the justice department. There could not be a more relevant time to stand up and speak on these issues. Much of the media right now reads like press releases from the State Department. It's time for other voices to be heard, the stakes are too high.
Frederick, Md.:
In your opinion, is there any attack which justifies a military response?
David Zirin: I think the U.S. is the chief destabilizing force in the world, so absolutely not. Look at Serbia -- the refugee crisis starts after the bombing by the U.S. There are examples throughout the 20th century of U.S. interventions that sound like they are just causes but in the end leave more people dead and more countries under the some of U.S. policy.
David Zirin: People should know that I'm from N.Y. City and a very close family member of mine worked in the World Trade Center and barely got out. My old highschool was one of the emergency triage units so I choose my words very carefully and I take this very seriously.
Adams Morgan, D.C.:
I have some sympathy for the positions espoused by the various groups this weekend, I'm in favor of a peaceful U.S. response myself. However, I question the timing of the protest. It's too soon after the terrorist attacks to even deal with yet. No military actions have occurred so far; won't this look like a knee-jerk reaction by the American people?
More importantly, I'm an urban activist who is very concerned about the hard economic times our city is facing. restaurants are closing, airport workers are unemployed, and tourists are staying away in droves. We just want to get back to normal here. Your protest, even if it stays relatively peaceful, is yet another reason for jittery tourists and suburbanites to stay away from the city. Your march is directly hurting the city's service workers!
David Zirin: Why wait until after we bomb?
Austin, Tex.:
Do you feel that freezing assets, and just sending in elite ground units (military versions of a SWAT team), instead of an all out missile strike and carpet bombing to be a viable resolution to brining the perpatrators to justice.
Even though I am part of Austin Against War the persons responsible for this attack need to be brought to justice
David Zirin: Please understand that I don't speak for the peace movement. Within the movement there is tremendous debate on these questions. I think our first responsibility is to oppose war and defend Arabs and Muslims from physical attacks and defend our civil liberties.
Falls Church, Va.:
You suggest that if the countries involved 'stabilized' that would be a good thing.
However, they may stabilize in a state that is not in our best interests. I see nothing to suggest that more time will result in a more pro-U.S. government. There is every possibility that the situation could lean the other way.
Not to be hyperbolic, but if we had waited for Nazi Germany to 'stabilize' that would have been a big mistake. As matters were, we waited perhaps too long before confronting that evil.
David Zirin: First of all, there were many sectors of the U.S. government and U.S. business that were all too happy to shake hands and invest in Nazi Germany. I am not talking about the U.S. in investing in Afghanistan or anything of that sort. I am saying that when the U.S. bombs the country and when relief workers are asked to leave the country and the people are subject to famine according to the U.N., that only aids governments like the Taleban that thrive on fear and oppression.
And remember, the Taleban was supported by a practical blank check by the U.S. government throughout the 1980's. In 1983, Ronald Reagan proclaimed Afghanistan day in tribute to the government, then they were freedom fighters, today they are terrorists. But they haven't changed, the U.S. perspective has changed. The cycle is insane.
Long Island, N.Y.:
Do you think the U.S. should attempt to dislodge the Taliban govenrment of Afghanistan? I've been horrified for years about their oppression of women and the brutality of their regime. I'm a peace loving, ex-hippie myself, but we need to get rid of these modern-day Nazis and end their war on women. Sometimes you have to fight for justice and peace, you know.
David Zirin: I agree that the Taleban is brutal and I see nothing to suggest that U.S. intervention will create a more peaceful place. Look at the example of Haiti, where the U.S. intervened in 1994 to remove a dictator named Cedras and poverty and the flourishings of sweatshops became worse because it was peace on the terms of U.S. business.
Washington, D.C.:
Are you fearful about what some of the counter-protesters might do? Why do you think your position arouses so much anger?
David Zirin: I have no problem that there are people who disagree with the new peace movement. My problem is with the people who think that we don't have the right to be heard. I think many Americans don't know what the powers President Bush actually has in the National War Powers Act. I think many Americans don't know that many Arabs and Muslims fear leaving their homes. Let's have that discussion with people who disagree with us marching instead of shouting at each other.
washingtonpost.com:
A number of our readers have submitted statements discussing the negative impact your march will have on local businesses and government resources. How do you respond to the idea that your march will be doing more harm than good for Washington, D.C. residence?
David Zirin: First of all, as a person who taught for three years in D.C. public schools, I care very deeply about this city. This is going to be a peaceful march of a couple thousand people that will take about 90 minutes. Let's not overstate things.
Washington, D.C.:
You seem to be implying that because the government and some Americans have made mistakes in the past, that we are morally unjustified in doing anything militarily again. Do you believe this? Do you believe that a mistake of 5, 10 or 50 years ago is a rational reason why we should take no military action today?
David Zirin: No I don't think the U.S. should take military action because I think it will continue the cycle of terrorism and counter terrorism. What happened in N.Y. is what the CIA calls "blow back." When the U.S. drops bombs on a country, they create thousands of people who want to respond. This is an insane cycle and it's usually the poorest of the poor who pay for it with their lives. All we're saying is let's try another path based on global and social economic justice.
Melbourne, Florida:
These marches always start out as 'peaceful marches', but what stops them from degenerating. Most of the time it seems like the protestors are waiting to create a spectacle and engage with police forces to bring more notice to their causes. What are the coordinators of this march doing to ensure that violence does not break out in the streets.
David Zirin: That's a wonderful question because that is the last thing we want. We are going to have a team of "peace-keepers" and "de-escalaters" whose purpose will be to make sure that the march is peaceful and we can talk through with people who may be upset as we walk by. This is not going to be a loud march. The organizers are marching out of respect for those who died and respect for the innocent who may die in the weeks to come.
Clifton, Ohio:
What do you think about Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly's argument that today's pacifists "are objectively pro-terrorist" in the same way that 1940's pacifists were termed pro-Fascist? washingtonpost.com:
"...Pacifist Claptrap," (Post, Sept. 26)
David Zirin: Great question. I thought Michael Kelly's column was beneath contempt just as I thought it was beneath contempt when he justified every U.S. intervention of the last generation. It is easy to take cheap shots from a columnist desk and it's easy to ride on the wave of people's very understandable fears and stress. This could not be further from proterrorism. It seems like only the peace movement and the CIA understand that the roots of terrorism lie in U.S. aggression. It's that agrression that we want to see stopped.
Hackensack, NJ:
Hi, I was a hippie in the 60's, I thought our war in Vietnam was wrong. I realize over the years, even though I was in my late twenties, that I was not aware of many things and protesting really made matters uglier. Yes I understand there is a freedom to protest, but in this case, with these terrorists I believe we are protecting this very same freedom. Don't you? Peace.
David Zirin: Do people know for the next 30 days it is illegal to gather in front of the White House? Free speech is a right that is being attacked.
Alexandria, Va.:
Do you think a country going to war is ever justified? You state that going to war will only continue the cycle of violence and war, but do you think there will never be wars as long as people don't respond to aggressions or attacks on their lives, property, or way of life? The alternative to not fighting back is to live under the control of the aggressors. Isn't personal freedom worth fighting for?
David Zirin: Absolutely right. I'm not a pacifist. I object to big countries playing globo-cop and intervening in smaller countries. I believe in a country's right to protect itself from aggressors. What happened on Sept. 11 was not a country waging war on us but the incredibly bitter fruit of U.S. foreign policy.
David Zirin: I want to thank the Washington Post and everyone who wrote in. This kind of dialogue is vital if we are ever going to live in a world without terror and without war. I'll march Sunday to honor those who died Sept. 11 and for the hope of a safer world.
People can gather at 11 a.m. in Meridian Hill Park, also known as Malcom X Park on Sunday, Sept. 30. We leave the park at Noon to march down 14th St. over to Sheridan Circle and then we march back.
You don't have to agree with everything I said but if you don't think George W. Bush should have a blank check for war, please march with us.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
