The Blowhard
03-25-2003, 11:38 AM
February 23, 2003 -- THE antiwar group Not In Our Name has attracted a lot of attention in recent months by publishing a "statement of conscience" in newspapers across the country. The organization purchased two full pages in the Jan. 27 New York Times to run the statement, which assails the Bush administration for "unleash[ing] a spirit of revenge" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and embarking on a course of "war abroad and repression at home."
The letter was signed by hundreds of celebrity endorsers, including the actors Ed Asner, Martin Sheen and Marisa Tomei; writers Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker and Barbara Kingsolver; musicians Graham Nash, Pete Seeger and Mos Def; and politicians Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The combination of well-known names and high-profile ad placement has made Not In Our Name a leading player in the antiwar movement.
Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to Not In Our Name's financial support network. A look at that network shows that the group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern terrorism.
AT a Not In Our Name demonstration held on Jan. 27 outside the United Nations, one speaker declared that opposition to a war in Iraq, as exemplified by the rally, "is becoming a broad-based movement." A look behind the scenes, however, suggests that the organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.
The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild, among others. The organizers intended for Not In Our Name to stage protests across the country and also draft, according to the group's organizing document, a "Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience to be issued by well-known artists, intellectuals, activists and people in public life, lending their moral authority and their unified voice to the resistance movement."
AT least in the latter goal, Not In Our Name has been extraordinarily effective. But it had to split in two to succeed. There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be inclined to sign the statement might not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street demonstrations and other protests).
"For the statement to succeed, we thought it should be separate from any form of political actions," says Clark Kissinger, a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party who has played a major role in organizing Not In Our Name. "We wanted people to be able to sign the statement without having their names used to endorse other actions."
Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently. Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.
THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do with the peace movement. Rather,
The letter was signed by hundreds of celebrity endorsers, including the actors Ed Asner, Martin Sheen and Marisa Tomei; writers Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker and Barbara Kingsolver; musicians Graham Nash, Pete Seeger and Mos Def; and politicians Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The combination of well-known names and high-profile ad placement has made Not In Our Name a leading player in the antiwar movement.
Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to Not In Our Name's financial support network. A look at that network shows that the group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern terrorism.
AT a Not In Our Name demonstration held on Jan. 27 outside the United Nations, one speaker declared that opposition to a war in Iraq, as exemplified by the rally, "is becoming a broad-based movement." A look behind the scenes, however, suggests that the organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.
The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild, among others. The organizers intended for Not In Our Name to stage protests across the country and also draft, according to the group's organizing document, a "Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience to be issued by well-known artists, intellectuals, activists and people in public life, lending their moral authority and their unified voice to the resistance movement."
AT least in the latter goal, Not In Our Name has been extraordinarily effective. But it had to split in two to succeed. There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be inclined to sign the statement might not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street demonstrations and other protests).
"For the statement to succeed, we thought it should be separate from any form of political actions," says Clark Kissinger, a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party who has played a major role in organizing Not In Our Name. "We wanted people to be able to sign the statement without having their names used to endorse other actions."
Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently. Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.
THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do with the peace movement. Rather,