The Militant
1984 1984-12Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 5 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 5
As a member of the Emergency National Conference Continuations Committee, I received the following letter in a mailing. I feel it is important to respond to distortions and misinformation which stand in the way of achieving unity in the anti-intervention movement. Therefore, in the interest of setting the record straight, I have asked Socialist Action to publish Jerry Gordon and Jim Lafferty's Oct. 30 letter to The Militant.—Carl Finamore This letter is being written in response to The Militant's iccount of the Emergency National Conference Against U.S. Miltary Intervention in Central America/the Caribbean, held in Cleveland, Sept. 14-16, 1984.
Our starting point has to do with a meeting held in Washingon, D.C., a little more than a month after the Cleveland confernce. On Oct. 23, representatives of national peace, anti-intervenion, antinuclear, religious, labor, and other groups at the meeting 'oted to sponsor a march on Washington, D.C. (and West Coast ities to be named later) on Saturday, April 13, 1985. The demontrations will be held to support four themes: an immediate end to J.S. intervention in Central America and the Caribbean; opposion to the nuclear arms race; money for jobs and human needs, lot war; and opposition to apartheid. Representatives of the Coninuations Committee of the Emergency National Conference vere present and participated in the meeting.
The Oct. 23 meeting initiated two historic firsts. April 13 will nark the first time that virtually the entire anti-intervention novement has come together to sponsor a national demonstration ıgainst U.S. intervention in Central America and the Caribbean. This will also be the first time that the anti-intervention and antiluclear movements have joined forces in calling for a national lemonstration. These were the twin goals of the Emergency Vational Conference.
Role of The Militant Now what has been the role of The Militant in all this?
Your article (Oct. 12, 1984) on the Emergency National Con'erence was a crude distortion from beginning to end. The article, ›oth in substance and tone, was implacably hostile to the conferince, which after all was called to help forge the broadest possible unity and to mount urgently needed massive demonstrations gainst U.S. interventionist actions.
The thrust of The Militant's article was to portray the Emergency National Conference as small, narrow, and inconsequenin "exposes" by the House Committee on Un-American Activites (then called by a different name) and the FBI. How tragic to read baiting attacks of a similar vein now appearing in The Militant.
The fact is that there were hundreds of independent activists at the Emergency National Conference coming from scores of unions (a number were elected officials), peace groups, and antiinterventionist organizations. If any group played "the major role, it was they.
A total of 175 trade unionists attended the conference. Not