[mgj-discuss] Re: UFPJ update
phipco at riseup.net
Mon May 23 15:38:03 GMT 2005
We can't go into a meeting with UFPJ and demand anything because it
hasn't been decided within MGJ what we want to do in the fall. We are
supposed to have this discussion on Wednesday at the general meeting. I
am also weary about leaping right into working with UFPJ or ANSWER or
anyone else since what if the decision that comes out of the discussion
we have is to not collaborate, or not sit at the same table. But to
issue a separate call to action, organize separate events? I mean I
don't think this will be the case, but you never know. Usually MGJ finds
something to focus on when we organize around the meetings of the World
Bank and IMF. Some theme or topic or some idea to bring it all together.
We haven't really thought about this so it is all really shapeless and
whereas I think everyone is committed to doing something in the fall, I
don't think we all have the same visions, and some may have not thought
about it at all. It would seem that anti-war issues might be that topic
or theme we organize around this fall given what is going on. But we
have to discuss and decide this first.
So if we have this meeting on Wednesday with UFPJ, before the general
meeting then what will we say? Is there a time we can all talk about the
fall and what we will say in the UFPJ meeting before Wednesday?
basav at igc.org wrote:
>Here, as promised, is a brief update from the UFPJ battlefront (irony
>So it sounds like UFPJ will issue a Call to Action for September 24-25 in
>the next couple of days, and they're in a hurry because they want to beat
>ANSWER to the punch. It's just as Soren feared - we're caught in the
>crossfire between UFPJ and ANSWER.
>And, because they're in such a hurry, they are not seeking or welcoming
>input from outside for the Call to Action. My intelligence report says that
>it will include no mention at all of the IMF/WB fall meetings. Which is
>very, very unfortunate. But then, Calls to Action can have a version 1.0, a
>version 2.0, etc. They're not written in stone.
>Given my past experience of dealing with such organizations, my strong
>recommendation will be a tough negotiating position. We must be firm and
>clear with them in all our interactions, starting with our possible meeting
>with them on Wednesday, that if they're doing a demonstration on September
>24-25 in Washington DC, it's just not acceptable that they do not include
>some very clear language about the IMF and World Bank in everything - from
>the Call to Action, to outreach materials, to march route (with stops at
>Murrow Park, Treasury, etc.), to speakers, to signs, banners, chants,
>street theater, etc., to media work (press release, talking points,
>speakers in press conference, etc). The IMF, World Bank, and neoliberalism
>can't be ignored, or even a fringe issue - they must be a central issue of
>the mobilization. We'd be very, very glad to work with them, but our offer
>of working with them should by no means be unconditional.
>All for now - I'll keep us updated about the meeting on Wednesday.
>Hopefully it will be in the Columbia Heights area at 6 pm, so several of us
>can make the meeting and not be too late for the general meeting. I'd
>recommend that as many of us as possible go, just to have a strong MGJ
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
More information about the mgj-discuss