May 2005

Editorial material in Peacework is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License unless copyright is otherwise specified.

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

A Two Track Strategy for the Peace Movement

Joe Volk is the Executive Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, www.fcnl.org, 245 Second Street NE, Washington, DC, 20002, 202/547-6000.

Joe Volk and other protesters launched 13 canoes to prevent the USS American Way from leaving for Vietnam. The ship carried 200 bombers and 2000 members of the military. Photo: Norfolk Daily News, 1973.

Nearly 10 percent of the population of Port Townsend, Washington gathered on October 27, 2002 for a peace portrait at the local football field -- part of a local campaign of marches, vigils, and other events to protest the coming war with Iraq. Port Townsend resident Bob Schultz, a retired philosophy professor, was not on the football field that afternoon because he was attending a meeting of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

But when he returned home, Bob said, he was astonished and delighted by the burgeoning Port Townsend peace movement. At the same time, he noted immediately the lack of a legislative element in the group's work and began to enlist his neighbors and friends in beginning a dialogue with their member of Congress about the war.

Using material and lobbying guidelines from FCNL, Bob organized a series of six meetings: three with the district director for Rep. Norm Dicks, a moderate "defense Democrat," who represents Port Townsend in Congress, and three with Dicks himself, including a town meeting at the local high school in Port Townsend that drew over 225 townspeople. The group continues to hold follow-up meetings with Dicks' staff, sponsors workshops on citizen lobbying and letter-writing to bring others into the process, and has begun holding similar meetings with their US senators.

Schultz does not claim that these meetings have changed the fundamental political perspective of Dicks, a strong supporter of the military who voted for the use of force resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. But after the war, Dicks did acknowledge, in an August 2003 meeting with a delegation in Port Townsend, that he had been "embarrassed" by the intelligence failures. He agreed to the peace group's request that he co-sponsor a resolution calling for an independent investigation of those failures. Dicks also spoke out firmly against the President's "preventive war" doctrine.

More important, Bob believes that these meetings have opened up channels of communication. "What we know for certain," he says, "is that Norm Dicks isn't hearing only from the Boeing and Raytheon 'suits' and the brass from the local military bases. He knows the peace community is an active part of his constituency in our town and across his district, and he knows we're paying attention."

When the people in the Port Townsend peace group objected to the Bush administration proposal to begin funding a new generation of so-called "bunker busting" nuclear weapons, Dicks played an important role in pressing for cuts in funding for that weapon in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget. He also played a role in eliminating all funding for the bunker buster from the 2005 budget.

"I don't think we're entitled to take responsibility for persuading Norm Dicks to vote against these weapons," says Bob. But he is convinced that the peace activists in Washington's Sixth Congressional District are getting a better hearing because of their ongoing relationship with their member of Congress.

In some ways, Port Townsend is an unusual community -- a community where 10 percent of the population turns out for a peace photo. But what Bob Schultz helped organize in Port Townsend is a good example of what FCNL believes is an effective mixture of protests and engagement with Washington. The citizens of Port Townsend continue to demonstrate and vigil, but also are building a long-term relationship with their elected leaders -- not expecting to transform militaristic misconceptions of national security overnight, but digging in to open up and maintain on-going dialogues.

This will not work everywhere, but it does work in more places than many people in the peace movement think, and I would guess that is why Peacework asked FCNL to write this article.

The Streets or the Suites?

Is there a role, even in moments like these, for efforts to pressure Congress and what is arguably the most conservative US Administration in decades? Many of my friends around the country argue that this inside strategy right now is a waste of time. They argue that the US Congress is now so dominated by conservative voices that there is no space for real debate. Therefore, it is time to go back to the long, hard strategy of building power at the grassroots to change the power dynamics in Washington.

Working at a Quaker lobby in Washington, I have already made my choice. The choice was to seek ways to bridge the gap between protest movements and those who make policy. We believe that a combination of strategies is required to confront the growing militarism in Washington and the seemingly endless search for new enemies.

The question is, "How can we move Congress toward our position?" The massive demonstrations around the country before the start of the Iraq war and the 765 local demonstrations and vigils on the second anniversary of the US invasion this past March have played a critical role in demonstrating there is a huge portion of the US population opposed to the growing militarism in Washington. There will be more demonstrations and vigils in the coming months. Members of the FCNL network will be at many of them carrying our "War is Not the Answer" signs.

FCNL believes it is not only possible, it is essential that we search for ways to effectively influence the national political debate in Washington. Our particular strategy on Iraq will change as we learn more and circumstances change, but the strategy fits into a longer term approach that FCNL believes is a part of what the peace movement needs to be doing in this period. The part that FCNL plays in this process is to help provide channels for engaging elected officials in Washington to get real change in policy and in federal spending choices.

This isn't a strategy that was invented by FCNL. The strength of the anti-apartheid movement in the United States in the 1980s was the combination of shanty towns and sit-ins on college campuses, the movement to pressure cities and states to divest from corporations involved in South Africa, and the national effort to pressure Congress to enforce sanctions on South Africa over the objections of then President Ronald Reagan.

There were many who felt that it was a waste of time to pressure Congress while Reagan was president and others who felt that there was no point in trying to get cities and states to adopt divestment resolutions. But in the end it was that combination of pressure that helped persuade several dozen US corporations to withdraw from South Africa. It also was critical to helping build the grassroots pressure to compel Congress to overturn President Reagan's veto and enforce limited sanctions on South Africa.

Our present goal, as adopted by our board of directors, is to lobby Congress to "Remove all US military forces and bases from Iraq, and fulfill US moral and legal obligations to reconstruct Iraq through appropriate multinational, national, and Iraqi agencies."

To advance this goal, FCNL believes we must simultaneously use several different approaches: A long-term strategy must include pressing for the total withdrawal of US troops and bases, establishing a positive alternative to war and militarism, and building a grassroots movement in this country that can make a compelling demand to its elected representatives. But it is possible to pursue this strategy while at the same time attempting to build political momentum to shift the debate in Washington.

The questions FCNL asks in the case of Iraq are the same questions we ask on all of the issues we work on: what is the way to move this debate forward? Is there a way to open up space for a different kind of discussion in Congress and in Washington while remaining faithful to our Quaker practice and to the legislative policy and priorities established by our governing board? How can we build a core of Congressional support for ending the war and occupation in Iraq and for ending the misguided and misnamed "global war on terrorism?"

The answers to these questions led FCNL to begin lobbying Congress to pass a simple, non-binding measure we call the Sensible Transition to an Enduring Peace (STEP) resolution, stating, "It is the policy of the United States to withdraw all military troops and bases from Iraq." No deadlines, no timetables, just a simple declaration of intent. (See www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=35).

In the last three months, the FCNL network has sent more than ten thousand letters to Congress urging members to support this type of resolution. FCNL supporters in 22 states have met personally with members of Congress and their staff to lobby for it. Anyone can join the FCNL legislative action network by going to our web site at www.fcnl.org and signing up for weekly legislative alerts.

Why is a national Quaker lobby pressuring Congress for a resolution that does not even demand the immediate withdrawal of US troops, several of my friends have asked. "I thought there was no point in going to lobby my Congressman with a demand to get out now," one FCNL key contact told us recently. "But with this message I could at least start the conversation." We hear the same story from many others.

We may or may not persuade Congress to pass the resolution FCNL is pressing for. But the pressure of thousands of people around the country is creating a debate in the halls of Congress. Several members of Congress have thanked FCNL delegations for asking the question, "If it isn't the policy of the United States to withdraw from Iraq, what is the policy? To stay?" An aide to a moderate Republican told one of our staff: "This is totally refreshing. I would even call it disarming."

Many days I believe that the government of President George Bush is more conservative than that of Ronald Reagan. But I still believe the peace movement needs a combination of strategies to build an effective movement. So I'm going to continue to go to vigils and demonstrations against the war and occupation of Iraq. I'm going to continue to refuse to pay my war taxes voluntarily. I'm going to ride my bike to work (sometimes) to use less Middle East oil. But I'm also going to keep handing out leaflets encouraging my friends and neighbors to engage Congress with courage and conviction.

Previous Article    Next Article