With the U.S. gearing up for a possible war with Hussein’s Iraq, the “peace” movement has been on the march. From attacks on the Bush administration’s foreign policy to criticisms on the cost of a possible war, anti-war coalitions have been vocal and opinionated.

I have, however, uncovered some rather disturbing information on these groups that they are less vocal about and might like to hide from mainstream America. In fact, some of the organizations holding ‘peace’ rallies have backed or supported regimes and policies that call into question their fervent support for so-called peace initiatives.

Probably one of the most visible of these organizations is the innocuously sounding Act Now to Stop War and End Racism or ANSWER. ANSWER recently held large rallies in Washington and San Francisco on the weekend of January 18th this year, bringing its anti-war agenda to the forefront. There were, however, a few things that ANSWER forgot to mention about itself to the rest of the rallies participants.

ANSWER, along with several other activist groups, is part of the International Action Center (IAC). The IAC is headed by once US attorney general for the Johnson administration turned radical socialist Ramsey Clark.

The IAC promotes a wide range of radical left-wing causes and programs. Among other things, the IAC supported Slobodan Miloslevic at the international court, opposing the trial and issuing statements of solidarity with the mass murderer.

It has professed support for the dictatorship in Cuba, and solidarity with the one in North Korea. It has rallied in the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop killer. ANSWER and the IAC’s agenda gets even stranger however.

The IAC has a very questionable program itself. However, it pales in comparison to that of the Worker’s World Party (WWP). The IAC is largely a front for the sometimes shadowy WWP.

This Stalinist splinter group, which now decries a possible invasion of Iraq, was formed from a segment of the Socialist Workers’ Party which broke away to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party also supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Further, it is known that they supported Mao’s murderous regime in China, the repression of Tibet, and is reported to have had close ties with the communist nation.

Unlike the support the party now gives American protestors, in 1989 it supported the Tiananmen Square massacre in which the Chinese government repressed mostly student protestors. No one knows how many students and activists were killed in the massacre, but estimates say at least 500, probably more. Quite the double-standard.

Where as the WWP now protests possible US military action in Iraq, as recently as 1999 the group became apologists for and even gave tacit support to the Serbian program of ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, and oppression of minorities in Kosovo. Beyond merely protesting intervention in the Balkan crisis, the WWP spread false and revisionist literature claiming the Serbian oppression were lies fabricated by “imperialists” and had never happened. Certainly an act as disgusting as neo-nazi holocaust denial. Furthermore, the WWP held rallies in 1999 where they joined forces with right-wing Serbian nationalists in defending the Serb army and even flying the Serbian flag.

ANSWER is one of the most prominent and definitely the most aggressive of the anti-war, pro-peace groups. It has also set itself apart from other protest groups through other means. They were one of the only groups during the first Gulf War that refused to condemn Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait or the regime in general.

Ramsey Clark has a special relationship with the regime, being one of the only U.S. councils to Iraq. The Iraqi ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan has made public speeches at IAC events and continues to receive support of the group. Ramsey Clark reported on the Gulf War from inside Iraq refusing to criticize the regime and suggesting he was there at its request.

There are also quite a few questions as to the funding the group receives. It keeps this information private from public scrutiny and some have speculated that their large private donations might come directly from Iraq. This doesn’t seem so far fetched when you look at the history of anti-war groups in America. American Nazis and anti-war groups received funds and support from Germany and the Soviets supported anti-American groups for years.

Further, the WWP has a radical stance on domestic issues. Their website promotes “militant resistance at home” and WWP representatives have come out in the past to support resistance against domestic ‘counter-revolution’, the overthrow of imperialism (the U.S. government?) and according to Brian Becker, a WWP spokesman, a “final transition to socialism everywhere.”

Despite its radical roots, however, many mainstream anti-war organizations as well as the mainstream media refuse to condemn the politics of the WWP or blow the whistle on their actions and are thus complicit it forwarding its agenda.

Despite its very tarnished past, the WWP and its subordinate affiliates now profess to be “against war” and “against racism”. ANSWER doesn’t appear to oppose either racism or war in my opinion. Why then did one of ANSWER’s featured speakers, Imam Mussa, recently lead a crowd of “peace” activists in the chant of “Allahu Ahkbar!”, the chant homicide bombers use as they blow up their victims and themselves?

Why does ANSWER have a fondness for several regimes who have instigated war and oppression and why do they refuse to condemn them? If these are the people and the organizations at the helm of the anti-war movement, what then does it say about this movement itself and its ultimate goal? ANSWER and the WWP demonstrate a history of hypocrisy when it comes to attacking American policies and tacitly supporting those of third world dictators or socialist tyrannies.

ANSWER and the WWP follow the simple equation that many left-wing (and right-wing) radicals adhere to. That is, the enemy of my country is my friend. I have herein revealed a dubious pattern of support for the worst of the worst in defense of a radical faith. I would hope that every student who takes the time to read this article, take the time to think about the nature of the groups they lend their support or allegiances to in the future.

By Keith Mower Received 2/18/03