Interview with Damu Smith, Director of Black Voices for Peace

July 15th, 2004
Transcription by Bob Reynolds

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and why you started this organization.
DAMU SMITH: I'm Damu Smith, founder and co-chair of Black Voices for Peace. And Black Voices for Peace was founded to organize a progressive Black community response to the tragic events of 9/11, 2001. And more specifically to respond to what we consider the ill-conceived response of the Bush administration to those tragic events. And so we've been focusing on the need to have a US foreign policy that is forged in peace and respect for human rights and dignity, and support for people struggling for democracy and human rights around the world. And for a progressive domestic policy that addresses funding essential human needs and supporting democracy here at home.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Leading up to the war in Iraq, what kind of actions was Black Voices for Peace involved with.
SMITH: Well, we've been involved in mobilizing for all of the major protests that have been held in Washington D.C. and New York City. And we organized our own protest, primarily here in the Washington metropolitan area. We've been trying to make sure that the African American community and the black community interculturally is integrally involved in all of these activities. We think it's important for the black community to be involved, because we need the black voice in interpreting, analyzing, helping people to understand what is going on and why we people in this country, working class people, poor people, women, people of color, young people -- why we all need to be coming together to challenge the dangerous and reckless policies of this administration. The black community tends to see things often through a different lens than white people, for example, because we've had a different experience. Our churches have been bombed. Our leaders have been lynched and assassinated. We've had church burnings. We had the civil rights movement, which was trying to address the issue of desegregating public accommodations. All of these things have led to a perspective -- a lens toward people in our community being more suspicious of whatever the government does. So all of the polls for example show that look -- if you look at who is against Bush, we have the highest polling numbers against Bush. We had the highest poll numbers against the war. We have the highest polling numbers for peace abroad. And our job as Black Voices for Peace has been to organize that sentiment to ensure that we would not only sentimentally are correct on the issues, but organizationally working to mobilize people to take action to address the issues.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And when you look at the -- Okay hold on, let me just ask. Are you hearing a lot of that or does it sound okay. [It's all right] Okay -- When you look at the performance of the print and television news media leading up to the war in Iraq, can you give an evaluation of the media's performance of incorporating a lot of skeptical viewpoints.
SMITH: The mainstream media has absolutely been horrible. They have been cheerleaders for the Bush administration's policies. They were not just "embedded," but "in bed" with the US Military and the Bush administration when both entities launched the war and occupation against Iraq. You cannot be objective, you cannot give an independent analysis if you are riding in a tank or an anti-personnel carrier or a jeep and living with the very military that's carrying out the occupation and the intervention. And so what happened was the American people were viewing television screens as if they were watching a movie, and the -- instead of real war. Because the media embedded with the military were there to tell a story not so much about the story behind the war, the story underlining the war, getting at the root causes of the war, and critically critiquing the causes of the war. The military was acting as if there was this drama movie -- this war movie being portrayed. And so they talked about tanks going into the battlefield, and what conditions the troops were under. And don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about the conditions our troops were under. But this war was a war fought for oil. It was fought for the interests of the oligarchy of this country and the Bush administration. It was not fought because of weapons of mass destruction. It was not fought because there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. But these are the things that the Bush administration said were the reasons for the war and more, and the media went along with this. So they became a cheerleader for the war. And reporters accompanying our troops and portrayed it as if it was some sort of a television show and docudrama as opposed to a real war that had underlying political currents that needed to be understood. And that was the problem that we've been dealing with. So the media in this country had to whip up passion for the war. The media became central to everything the Bush administration was doing. Without the media, I do not believe the Bush administration could have gotten away with this war. So the media is culpable -- the mainstream media. Thank God for independent progressive media like Pacifica radio and others that did everything possible to expose what this war was really about. Shame on the mass media -- major media in this country.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And... Alright. Now -- In my video project that I am working on right now, I'm stopping at March 19th, which is the beginning of the war. So talk about leading up to the war, were you in dialogue with a lot of the mainstream media -- the print press, corporate press? What types of reactions were you getting from the media in trying to get -- ?
SMITH: Well, we were primarily in touch with the Washington Post and the New York Times. We organized two protests against the Washington Post for its editorializing for the war. For its journalistic exclusion policy of not really reporting on what the anti-war movement was doing, and what specifically about what people of color in the black community was doing to oppose the war. We were in communication with the New York Times, because the New York Times had this article -- I never forget this -- the Sunday after a major ANSWER-sponsored protest that we were a part of near the Vietnam War memorial. And they gave these reports on these low number of people that attended. There were thousands of people out there. And so we got in touch with the New York Times, and we tried to find out what was going on. Why did you incorrectly report the numbers that were at the protest? Of course, the New York Times joined National Public Radio and some other publications in misreporting how many people were there. There were thousands of people there and they gave these low numbers of a few hundred disinterested people, that kind of thing. So we were very angry about the role of the press, and we begin to protest. And like I said we staged two protests outside the Washington Post. We were able to confront Ben Bradley, one of people in the higher echelons of the Post, and say to him, "Why are you editorializing for this war?" So we were out there protesting. We also were mobilizing people to protest efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to further consolidate media monopolization of the nation's airways, which of course was a problem for us because the media, as I've said before, has been a principle cheerleader for the policies of this administration. And further media consolidation would mean further viewing of attitudes and opinions from the mass media standpoint that excluded the voices of the anti-war movement, voices from the black community, progressive voices and non-mainstream players, who advocated a different foreign policy for our country.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And did you watch a lot of the -- I'm focusing specifically on ABC, CBS and NBC, and I'm wondering if you watched any of the coverage building up to the war. And your response to that -- their coverage.
SMITH: Oh yes, I watched all the coverage, including CNN. You know, I had this experience a few weeks after the war started where I appeared on CNN Prime Time with Paula Zahn. And an hour before I appeared on the show, they were doing this teaser trying to set me up saying that "Was the anti-war movement wrong about the war?" Because the polling numbers according to them were very high that American people were for the war. And what I said at the time -- and I reiterate now -- was that the American people were fed a diet of pro-war, anti-Iraq sentiment that helped to mobilize people for the war. So I was very skeptical about the polling numbers. And if the polling numbers were indeed correct, they had a lot to do with the fact that we were being spoon-fed the policies and the viewpoint of the administration. That's what we saw in ABC news, NBC News. They were bringing in these former retired generals, people who had just left the military. And they were using them on these hi-tech visuals that were being shown. They would show the bombs being dropped. And they would show these things exploding on these grainy black and white video screens. And so what we were seeing -- We were not seeing casualties. We were not seeing Iraqi casualties. We were not seeing children burn. We were not seeing men, women and children dying, and being dumped into mass graves. We were not seeing US soldiers screaming and hollering when they were shot or maimed or wounded. So we were seeing none of this. And again, the media participated in this. So they continued to run the line of the administration about the reasons we had to go to war. They -- Again, reported on the war as if it was a docudrama instead of a real war. And 3.) They never showed visually, the true impact of war. The horrific things that happen when you wage a war -- the destruction of human life and the destruction of property.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And can you speak to your perception of how this administration views international law, views the UN, and why is international law important?
SMITH: Well, this administration has a complete disregard for international law and international institutions. The effort by -- so-called effort by the United States to get approval of the United Nations for the war in Iraq was a complete farce. First of all, they were tapping the phones of the UN officials. They were engaged in discrediting the United Nations weapons inspections team that was on the ground in Iraq just before the war. They continue to criticize in the press countries like France and Germany and others who were opposed to the war. So on the one hand you had this dance -- this fake, farce dance by the United States acting as if -- through Colin Powell being a mouthpiece for the administration -- acting as if they were serious about getting international support. When in fact, the Bush administration had already decided, "They were going to war no matter what the United Nations said." And they created a set of circumstances where it would be difficult for the United Nations to go along with what the United States wanted anyway, so that they could go to war. So the United States went to war on false pretenses. They ran the UN weapons inspectors -- that the United States sought to totally discredit -- out of the country because they didn't want the UN weapons inspectors to be there because they thought that they wouldn't find anything. So the best thing to do according to this administration, was to defy international opinion and the United Nations -- the millions of people who were protesting in the streets of Europe and Africa and Asia and Latin America and in the United States -- defy everyone, and go to war because this administration was committed to one thing: Regime Change. It was never about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. It was never about weapons of mass destruction. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, but they wanted to have control, politically and economically over that region and over the oil fields in Iraq.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And why is international law important?
SMITH: International Law is important because those are the instruments that we use to help maintain peace and stability in the world and to resolve international disputes. War is old fashion stuff that never works. War kills. War destroys. War maims. War traumatizes nations and peoples. We have to rely on the United Nations and international law and international instruments that are aimed at resolving conflict between nations and peoples. Without that, the entire world would be in chaos. But when you have countries like the United States -- and Israel I might add -- that love to defy international law and international opinion and do whatever they want to wreak havoc on peoples, then the world is in constant danger and less secure. And today, the people of the United States and the entire world are less secure because of the policies of the United States and Israel that continue to defy international law and ignore it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: A lot of people on the right say, "Everyone else is doing -- No one else follows international law. France doesn't. No one does." So talk to your response to "There's no sovereign authority to actually enforce these rules."
SMITH: Well, you know -- Of course, there are countries that defy international law besides the Unites States. But here's is the point -- Without a commitment on the part of nations and peoples and groups to try to enforce international law, and to work to ensure that international law is respected, we are guaranteed to have a world constantly and permanently at war. There are many defects in the United Nations system. There are many defects in the global system of jurisprudence aimed at addressing conflicts. Our job as activists in this country is to work to educate the American people and the people of the world about international law, the value that international law has to resolve international disputes. And to ensure that we are actively engaged by pressing our own government to respect international law, and to get other groups to do the same in their respective countries. That's the only insurance that we have that international law and international processes will work.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And when you look at the build-up to the war in Iraq and you look at the coverage of the news media -- Talk about how they did or did not incorporate skeptical viewpoints in the day-to-day beat coverage.
SMITH: Well, they didn't --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not going to be including my questions so if you could --
SMITH: Well, here's the problem. The media -- The mainstream media has never wanted to feature alternative points of view. And when they do present alternative points of view its always within a certain box -- a genre of people. For example, they'll have members of Congress perhaps expressing alternative points of view, but they're not going to have Damu Smith. They're not going to have Leslie Cagan. They're not going to have Brian Becker. These are all leaders of the anti-war movement. They are not going to have our perspective. All right? And so we get excluded from Meet the Press. We get excluded from ABC News Tonight, ABC News Sunday. We get excluded from all of the talk shows on Sunday morning. You never see representatives of the anti -- I'm sorry -- You never see representatives of the anti-war movement in the media on these morning talk shows. They won't have us. This despite the fact that we are the ones who are mobilizing millions of people in the streets all the time. We do have some influence. We are shapers and molders of public opinion yet they don't invite us to speak. And this is a deliberate policy on the part of the mainstream media to insure that the American people would not have the benefit of our perspective and our point of view and the knowledge and expertise that we bring to the table. I would love, for example, to debate Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, President Bush, Dick Cheney, but the media is afraid of this because they know that we will ask the tough questions that they will never ask. And this is the problem with the mass media in this country. They are afraid for true democracy.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And do you see that a lot of the "He Said / She Said" is only from Democrats and Republicans? And if anything outside of that point of view is --
SMITH: Absolutely. Its Democrats verses Republicans -- or some Independent Republican versus another Republican. Its never us. So you see a rotation of the same people every week. You see John McCain on there all the time. You see these -- you know, Arlen Specter on there all the time. You see the same people being recycled every week on these broadcasts. So the American people, they don't have a clue about what we're thinking unless they see us on C-SPAN or on independent media. I tell you, the media has pursued -- The mainstream media in this country has pursued what I consider the most unethical, criminal, undemocratic policy you could ever have. Because they deliberately exclude the voices of people that could help determine the outcome of other people's point of view and other people's action. It is deliberate. And it is designed to ensure complicity in the policies of the current regime by the American people by misinforming them, and by making sure that they don't hear another point of view. That is not a democracy. That is not democracy at all, and the media is playing a role in denying people their democratic right to hear other points of view. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a limited democracy, dominated by those with the money and those with the capital to afford to go on TV and be heard.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And when you look at the actual days of the protest, usually it's on a Saturday. And the media, they will cover it, but -- Talk about the nature of the coverage. To me they seemed to cover it as a photo-op, and look at the substance. And they -- And then it's forgotten after that. Can you speak to that a little bit?
SMITH: Oh. Well yeah. And let me just say, after a lot of protesting and phone calls and letters, the media began to do a little bit of a better job of covering us. But they never reached the point where they needed to reach. We were called -- the anti-war movement that is -- the other great -- the world's other great superpower when the protest of February 2003 occurred, and we had thousands of people out in the streets of New York and San Francisco when United for Peace and Justice and other groups organized their protests. But the media -- The Washington Post, I never forget -- I believe, I could be wrong on this, but I believe that they sort of put this on page 15 of the "A" section or something like that. It still never got the kind of coverage that it needed to have -- that is that demonstration that took place in February of 2003. So while we were covered, we still were never covered in terms of what we were saying about the analysis behind the war. We were the ones raising questions about weapons of mass destruction. We were the ones that were disagreeing, saying that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. We were saying those things. We were raising the questions. But members of the Democratic party were going along with the program -- saying now that they were misled by the administration. They were misled because they did not ask the right questions. We were asking the right questions. We were leading the anti-war protests, asking the right questions at the same time. Yet again, our voices were not being heard, and what we were doing was not being properly analyzed by the media whenever they reported on us anyway.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And can you talk about skepticism that you had towards the case of weapons of mass destruction? Some people listening would say, "Well how do you know. You're not an expert. You're not there."
SMITH: Well, there were a set of circumstances that lead to our suspicions. Number 1, the UN weapons inspectors hadn't found anything -- Remember? They were still there. They were still searching. And they had incredible access to major institutions in Iraqi society this time around. So they were on the ground searching. And Iraq was beginning to destroy some of their so-called long-range missiles just weeks before the war. So of course, they weren't finding anything. And when Colin Powell went before the United Nations, and he told these elaborate, sophisticated lies, I went on BET. And I'll never forget this. Remember, BET is now under the jurisdiction of CBS News. I raised questions about Colin Powell's presentation. I said, we have heard the Secretary of State's presentation, and now we need to have third party review of everything he said. I raised questions about those voices that were heard on those tapes that were played that allegedly were Iraqi personnel saying things, trying to figure out how to hide weapons when UN weapons inspectors were about to approach. I said on the media then, "Those could have been CIA agents planted by the United States to say those things." Why was I raising those questions? Because I know that in the past, the Central Intelligence Agency has misled the American people time and time again to justify interventions in Latin American and Asia and in other parts of the world. So we had good reason to doubt what the administration was saying and what the CIA was saying based on past history. Lawmakers on the hill, if they were smart enough and wise enough and principled enough would have raised the same kinds of questions. They didn't. So I don't want to hear this talk about "They were misled." They misled themselves, and they fell for that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And when I read Media Research Center, which is kind of the -- more of the conservative, right-wing criticism, they'll look at the anti-war rally -- and I think that there was even legitimate debates within the left that it's very split and diverse, and you'll have at an anti-war rally, a whole broad spectrum of opinions. And then -- And so can you talk about the diversity even within the anti-war movement, and how since the Bush administration wasn't really being clear, there was in a way a lot of conspiracy theories -- or theories of trying to figure out why we were going to go to war -- you know, with a broad spectrum. So can you just --
SMITH: Well -- We do have a diverse anti-war movement. We have people within the anti-war movement who are considered very much to the left of the political spectrum -- ANSWER gets that label as a description -- International ANSWER. You have -- And you know, they tend to be more overtly and unapologetically anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and they say that in their literature and in their publications. At the same time, they are a group that has tried to reach out to broader segments of people to be part of their efforts. And then you have other organizations like the American Friends Service Committee, the National Council of Churches that tend to not to be as overtly and explicitly, rhetorically anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist -- although in their actions, they clearly are. As a matter how people speak about situations in the world, and how we analyze situations in the world, and how we choose to use language to mobilize people. And I think the issues around Israel and Palestine, for example, is one which has divided the anti-war movement or kept us sometimes in conflict with one another about how to project the issue of Palestine in the context of doing work around Iraq and work around Afghanistan and work around other issues like Latin America. So we do have a wide range of voices within the anti-war movement. But I have to tell you that, with all of the problems -- or divisions that might exist, we were able to mobilize thousands, millions of people forging unity at the right moment to do what we needed to do to be effective and to get people out. Unfortunately, it didn't stop the war. It did slow the war down. It did force the United States to play like it wanted to go to the United Nations. We were able to educate and mobilize thousands of people. And we have to continue to grow those seeds that were planted during that time to a really, truly powerful and effective anti-war movement for the long haul for the work that has to be done beyond this administration.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And part of International Answer's acronym is that they want to "End Racism." Can you -- And to some people that may not make sense necessarily in the context of Iraq, and so can you elaborate on issues of Racism and Iraq.
SMITH: Oh, absolutely. You know racism is a key tenet of US imperial policy around the world -- US military interventionist policy around the world. If you look at where most of the last major wars were fought -- Where were they fought? They were fought in Asia, for example, and the Middle East -- specifically in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Latin America and many other countries. Most of these are non-white, non-European countries. One can't help but wonder, "Would the United States be dropping bombs on white people in the same way as they are so quick to drop bombs, napalm, and other weapons of mass -- and use other weapons of mass destruction as they have done on people of color?" This is a very serious issue and Dr. King talked about the need to quote/endquote "integrate our foreign policy." And what he meant is that we needed to have the perspective of people of color. Unfortunately, we have an administration that has found people of color like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, who actually carry the water for this administration and are doing the dirty -- helping to do the dirty deeds of this administration. But what we do need are more voices of people of color who can bring their perspective to the foreign policy debate and the public policy discourse in this country that talks about racism in the history of this country and the role that racism has played in forging US policy -- For example towards South Africa, during all those years in which the apartheid regime -- the white supremacist apartheid regime was in power, and the US provided economic support for them. And how the United States provided millions of dollars through the Central Intelligence Agency to the UNITA rebels in Angola wreaking havoc on their country. And how the US provided weapons to Mobutu, a dictator in Africa, at the expense of thousands of lives of Africans in that country who have suffered, and really been in pain and agony during the years of that brutal regime that the United States supported for geopolitical reasons. So we have a lot to talk about in terms of the role that racism has played in US policy. And the recent examples of the treatment of the Iraqi prisoners are recent examples -- fresh examples of how racism functions. Most of those GI's, not all of them, but most of them who were carrying out those dirty deeds against Iraqi prisoners were white. And what we've heard from analysts who have looked closely into the situation is that most of those white soldiers -- most of those US soldiers who were doing those dirty things -- those horrible things against Iraqis -- you know, stripping them naked, having them engage in sex acts and that kind of thing -- they have a very negative attitudes about them as Arab people. They looked at them like they were dogs. And when you think of people as dogs and less than human, you tend to treat them in that way. And that's what we have seen in terms of what US troops have been doing on the ground in Iraq:

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And let me see if there's another -- Finally, can you describe your vision of world peace? And what we need to do to get there?
SMITH: Well, we've got to have justice in order to have peace. I mean, you know, this slogan that you've heard come out of primarily the black community over the past several years: "Know Justice, Know Peace -- No Justice, No Peace." It has real deep, principled meaning in the context of our lives. Whenever there has been a violent rebellion in the black communities of the United States or in the Latino communities or the Native American communities, it has been because a police officer shot a black man or a Native American or a Latino. Because there's been no justice in terms of how the police treat people of color. Whenever workers don't have just wages, there is a strike. There's a protest, and the police respond. And all around the world, where people are under the yoke of colonialism and oppression and their human rights are being violated, there is violence. And so from the perspective of Black Voices for Peace, we understand very clearly that until the people of the world in every country of the world have true justice, equality, freedom and their human rights are respected, there will be no peace and stability in the world or in any country or in any neighbor or family or community. War comes about -- in most cases -- because someone perceives or is actually experiencing a gross injustice being inflicted in the situation. And poverty and national oppression and racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing and occupation are things that bring about violence. In Palestine, Israel is occupying Palestinians. They are causing them to suffer and to be humiliated. That's why we have suicide bombers -- And that's not meant to justify them, but to explain the Palestinian people are desperate for their liberation, because they're under such massive, incredible, painful humiliations by the Israelis who bulldoze their homes, uproot their olive trees, shoot innocent children and shoot children who are throwing stones at tanks. We cannot expect that people would be responsive in any different way, then what the Palestinians are doing to respond to the evil, systemic, barbaric, criminal occupation that the Israeli government is carrying out against those people. So until we have justice everywhere in the world, there will never be any peace. That's our perspective. We have to have our country supporting justice, human rights, democracy for all people, ensuring that people have enough to eat, people have adequate housing and people's fundamental rights are being respected. That is not occurring throughout the world. In fact, we on the other hand, the United States, we are supporting most of the despotic, repressive, racist regimes around the world that are impoverishing people, discriminating against people and engaging in policies of ethnic cleansing and rape as a weapon of war. When we do that, we create more instability in the world. And that's why we have to have a vision that talks about supporting democracy and human rights as a key to preventing war and balancing the world and maintaining stability everywhere.