They promised utopia if only we were smart enough to listen to them. (1)
From January 19-21, representatives of 16 Communist parties met in Argentina for the Second International Seminar of Communist Parties. Delegates from Spain, Portugal, Cuba, France, Italy, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Greece and six other countries voted to express their resolve to prevent a new "imperialist United States war against Iraq." An "imperialist United States war against Iraq" is a phrase that is familiar to anyone who has listened to any of the peace protests during the past several months.
The World Social Forum, which convened a few days later in Brazil, received a memo from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), Prague, that instructed the delegates to "stop all wars and preparations for wars and promote international cooperation to promote economic development and social progress for all peoples and countries." (2)
The memo expressed its concern that," peace and security of our planet are threatened by the massive troop movements and preparations for a US-led war on Iraq and possibly other countries. It is a matter of deep concern that the principles of the UN Charter and the existence of the United Nations itself are now seriously threatened by the increasing unilateralism of the Bush Administration." The WFTU proclaimed among other things that there should be a," Reduction of military budgets and transfer of the savings to finance social development;
There were many more disparaging remarks in the WFTU memo about United States policy in Venezuela, the United States’ military-industrial complex, etc. However, if you listened to the rally February 15th, you heard the same things. Is it a coincidence that the principle leaders of the "peace movement" say the same things as international Communist organizations?
This excerpt from the January 11 edition of the People’s Weekly World Newspaper titled, "U.S. peace movement key to stopping Iraq war," may provide some reason for the similarities.
The author Susan Webb wrote:
"With the Bush administration working to steamroller United Nations compliance with its war drive, broad-based peace actions by the American people may well hold the key to preventing a U.S. attack on Iraq.
"Indicative of the expanding movement opposing Bush’s war policy, Cleveland AFL-CIO Executive Secretary John Ryan and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) will join Dr. Otis Moss, an associate of Martin Luther King, and other religious leaders in the city’s African-American community, in a Voices Against the War event, Jan. 12, initiated by the newly formed Intercommunity/ Interfaith Push for Peace coalition… A mass anti-war mobilization will take place in New York City on Feb. 15, initiated by United for Peace. The same day, millions are expected to march against war in Europe and Japan…
"More than 30 national, state and local labor organizations and leaders have, in one way or another, expressed concern over the Bush administration’s drive to war, and that number is expected to grow. Major religious, environmental and women’s groups have also voiced opposition to war.
"Thirteen religious leaders, led by National Council of Churches General Secretary Robert Edgar, returned Jan. 3 from a mission to Iraq, where they said they witnessed the 20-year legacy of suffering of Iraqi civilians especially children and were burdened with the knowledge that war would further deepen that suffering.
"A delegation from Pax Christi, a Catholic lay organization, also recently returned from Baghdad, where they met with Iraqi religious leaders, UN officials, relief organizations and ordinary Iraqis. Delegation members said a war on Iraq would be a grave mistake and lead to further destabilization of the region.
"The Bush administration is working to create an atmosphere that war is inevitable, with daily reports of troops, hospital ships, and battle command staff taking up positions near Iraq.
"Nevertheless, dozens and dozens of peace actions are happening throughout the U.S., Peace Action communications director Scott Lynch, told the World.. Observers note that the White House, intent on ensuring the re-election of George W. Bush and his ultra-right team in 2004, is sensitive to shifts in public opinion. 'The Bush administration can be influenced,' Lynch said, adding, 'If the chickenhawks had had their way we would have rolled into Baghdad a long time ago.' Lynch cited recent polls showing a 10 percent drop in support for Bush’s war policy, and said the push to war is widely seen as dictated by geopolitical designs including control of the oil-rich Middle East rather than any threat from Iraq. " (3)
These Communist organizations are mobilizing to avoid war with Iraq. However, instead of making arguments opposed to Saddam Hussein’s policies, they manipulate the sincere desire for peace of a great many citizens. Instead of protesting Saddam Hussein’s defiance to the UN resolutions, they indoctrinate these citizens with anti-American arguments-attempting to discredit our government.
The arguments and theories the Communists use are not unfamiliar. They are the same canards heard at all of ANSWER’s events. They speak of oil and imperialism and other such things ad nauseum. The same arguments they made during the 80’s that were proven false; the same arguments that were made during the Gulf War that were proven false; the same arguments made during the Taliban war that were proven false.
These faux pacifists are the same hypocrites, charlatans, and Jacobins discredited. Only the mainstream media believes them and even they are becoming doubters. Even the mainstream media now recognizes the Communist origins of the "peace" leadership. However, if someone indicates the relationship between Communist revolutionaries and the peace groups certain media types or "peaceniks" label them a red-baiter, for doing nothing more than calling a Communist a Communist.
Why liberals are apprehensive about the legitimate identification of Communist leadership among the peaceniks needs explanation. Are they saying this to eliminate the possibility of debate? This red-baiting label is very much like when liberals call someone a racist or claim a remark is "hate speech." It is meant merely to preclude the possibility of debate.
Why are the "peaceniks" reluctant to debate? Why are the Communists reluctant to identify themselves and their roles in the " peace" movement? If the Communists truly want a peaceful world they would be enthusiastic about identifying themselves as the leaders of the peaceniks.
Could it be that the Communists realize that most Americans, with their innate common sense, know that a Pax Communism is an oxymoron?