printer friendly version
Search
Reply to Edward S.Herman and David Peterson's "Riding the 'Green Wave'..."
July 28, 2009
By
Campaign for Peace and Democracy -- CPD
Campaign for Peace and Democracy -- CPD's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
[This is a reply to "Riding the ‘Green Wave' at the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and Beyond" by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson.
Reply from Stephen R. Shalom, Thomas Harrison, Joanne Landy and Jesse Lemisch of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, July 27, 2009]
Herman and Peterson's article alleges that the Campaign for Peace and Democracy Q&A on Iran is not just an unhelpful effort that sows confusion, but anti-left, reminiscent of statements from Condoleezza Rice, and suspiciously similar to U.S. foreign policy, Is it mere coincidence, they ask, that the CPD focuses on Iran, which is also the target of a long term U.S. policy of destabilization and regime change? This charge -- that CPD is somehow acting on behalf of
We welcome debate, but we can't honestly say that we welcome this vitriolic and dishonest attack by Herman and Peterson. We will respond to their specific claims about events in
Yes, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy has been selective in the issues it addresses. It does not have the resources of Amnesty International and cannot investigate and report on every atrocity going on around the world. In fact, CPD has zero paid staff, a tiny budget, and indeed was dormant for quite a few years. So it has tried to focus on a few issues where it had some expertise, where it could bring together peace and democracy activists from different parts of the world and -- most importantly -- where it had a useful independent perspective to offer. During the Cold War, CPD (in its earlier incarnation as Campaign for Peace and Democracy/East and West) helped organize East European dissidents against
During the run-up to the 2003 U.S.-led attack on
As we suggested above, CPD, with its severely limited resources, is only able to take up three or four issues a year, at most. This past year, aside from the issue of the
Are CPD's views on the current
The Campaign for Peace and Democracy's record of principled and consistent opposition to
As we said, a more detailed response will be forthcoming. But for now, we'd like to briefly take up a couple of points that reveal their twisted perspective. Herman-Peterson concede that it's true that not all protesters in
Herman and Peterson's method effectively precludes supporting any struggles against the state - whether for democracy, women's rights, free trade unions, or anything progressive -- in countries that are regarded as enemies by
As we said in our Iran Q&A, "There is no doubt that
But we think that for Herman and Peterson, the question, "who's calling the shots," is answered by the mere fact that Iran is on Washington's enemies list and that the U.S. has worked to promote "regime change" there. Adopting the approach of Herman and Peterson would cut off the
Thomas Harrison and Joanne Landy are Co-Directors of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy; Stephen R. Shalom and Jesse Lemisch are CPD Endorsers. The four co-authored the CPD Q&A on the
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
2790 Broadway, #12,
Email: cpd@igc.org Web: www.cpdweb.org
|
Comment On This Article | See All Comments (6) | View sustainers that like this article |
Comments
By Polson, Rufus
I'm not too clear about the justice of accusations in this case. But in general, I find arguments that go "Why are you talking about this, instead of talking about that?" unconvincing. I see right wing trolls take that line all the time on various boards. I mean, yeah, maybe CPD could be criticizing X, Y or Z instead of the Iranian government, but that hardly makes a difference to the accuracy of their comments about the Iranian government, now does it?
If someone wants to argue that they're wrong, I'll be more impressed by arguments that they're wrong. I think there are decent arguments to be made that there has been significant US involvement in the protests and whatnot in Iran, and in the widespread accusations about the results. So, like, make them, don't waste time going all "You're a bad leftist for even saying that and if you were a good leftist you'd be talking about something else instead."
The Left Takes another Orwellian Turn
By Ward, Peter
Apart from the typical evasive pattern, pretending the Iraq invasion was an abberation rather than typcial if extreme representation of US foriegn policy action as well as skiriting the fundemental criminality of the event implying a war crimes tribunal and so on, is the fact CPD are focused on other countries, conincidently ones that happen to be US imperial targets, such as Iran rather than on ending the atrocities the US is committing; i.e., the ones we as Americans (those of us that are, of course) might actually be able to prevent.
Besides, what does "solidarity" with the Iranians mean in concrete terms, one wonders. I'd be willing to bet not a hill of beans--perhaps one of the CPD reps can enlighten US?
The Herman-Peterson / CPD Kerfuffle
By , Martin
I find this debate to be very informative and helpful on many levels while covering a range of ideas and subjects. I look forward to the CPD's more detailed response and must warn those who are dissmissive of Herman (and Peterson) that they should take the time to go back on znet and read any number of debates between Herman and others. I do hope CPD is capable of explaining themselves more forcefully than the "dog ate my homework" excuse given here. Lack of time and resources is hardly enough to counter most of what Herman and Peterson are saying here.
I find it curious that Harrison and Landy seem to have had their feelings hurt and take personally what Herman/Peterson are saying. Are Herman/Peterson being vitriolic? Perhaps. Dishonest? CPD have their work cut out for them in proving that charge and I'll wager they will fail. Lashing out the way they do here to me falls into the category of tantrum.
We deserve a more sober response to the substantive nature of Herman and Peterson's piece. There is a pattern I have detected over the years that when someone gets their covers yanked they react in an emotional manner similar to this unimpressive response. Herman and Peterson's convincing argument that the CPD are at the very least unwittingly subservient to the Western propaganda system can be taken as vitriolic only if our egos are more important than millions of peoples lives.
I eagerly await hearing more from all the parties above. We should take this debate seriously if we truly care about the life and death subjects under consideration here.
Re: CPD, Iran, Honduras
By Nikonov, Alla
I would NOT repeat my argumnents, but would like to note that wsws.org which does NOT like Chaves nevertheless DEFENDED him against USA imperialism. They like Ahmadinejad even less, but still, they DEFEND Iran against USA imperialism' meddling and threats, including such voices of said imperialism as NYT, WSJ and Nation. They do it because they see USA imperialism as a FOE, not as a possible ally.
CPD, Iran, Honduras
By D'Arcy, Steve
I'm glad they wrote this reply. The Herman/Peterson piece was quite bad, and on the wrong side of the truncheon vis-a-vis the democratic popular revolt in Iran.
However, I would have liked to hear something about Honduras. The strongest argument in the Herman/Peterson article was that the CPD ignored Honduras while issuing a statement about Iran, even though the stated reason for interest in Iran could be extended to the case of Honduras, going on at the same time. The reply (by CPD) hints at a possible response, which is that they lack resources to campaign on more than a few things each year, and that they pick these based on their capacities in terms of expertise, etc.
But I, for one, would want them to spell it out. The reason for my suspicion is that the CPD is "Shachtmanite" in inspiration, which means that they come out of a certain strand of sectarian Trotskyism, founded by Max Shachtman, sometimes called "Third Campism." There are some valuable contributions and insights to be found in that tradition, despite its many limitations. However, one thing that is typical of Shachtmanites today is a great suspicion of Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution. They regard the Venezuelan President (H. Chavez) as "a bourgeois populist" (to quote AWL, a British Shachtmanite organization), and in that sense as fundamentally on the other side in the class struggle. Most Shachtmanites probably would argue for a revolution against the PSUV government in Venezuela. I go into all this "sectariana" only because it leads me to worry that CPD is silent on Honduras because they believe that Zelaya was closely aligned with Chavez and the PSUV regime in Venezuela. This is the kind of thing that leads people -- revolutionary socialists who side with workers' movements and pro-democracy struggles, not just Stalinists and supporters of right-wing populism in Iran -- to be somewhat wary of the CPD. Hopefully, in their follow-up reply, which they promise here, they will go into the Honduras case. I would like to think that their silence on Honduras is just a matter of limited resources, not a symptom of Chavez-ophobia (so to speak).
In Iran, there is no evidence that the U.S. is calling the shots
By Nikonov, Alla
And IS their ANY evidence of reason for "green revolution" i.e. "stolen elections"? In fact, we KNOW that at least USA rulers pay a vast sums of money for such events, about which they spoke as a plan some years ago.
But whom I try to reason with? The same people for whom USA imperialsim=USSR? Sure, a lot of western leftists agree with it, so I guess the CPD is suitable vechicle for such leftists.