www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, March 2003
Lead Article
Is the anti-war movement ready for war--and its aftermath?
by Kevin Michaels The huge turnouts at the anti-war demonstrations held
around the globe on the weekend of Feb. 15 have reinforced the suspicions of
those who believe that the only people with enthusiasm for an invasion of Iraq
are those in possession of the executive branch of the United States government.
These protests--massive in scale and rich in the diversity of
participants--represent a thoroughgoing attempt to halt this war before it
starts. They have already produced a grudging recognition of their scale from
George W. Bush and, while the demonstrations may not have made him abandon his
plans for an invasion, they did capture the attention of the world. Early reports of the large numbers of protesters at one
of the first demonstrations to be held on this weekend-long series of events--in
Melbourne, Australia on the Feb. 14--to build anticipation for the magnitude of
the event. As many as 200,000 people marched in Melbourne and significant
protests took place in other Australian cities as well. At the same time as the
Australians marched, a demonstration took place in East Timor, the world’s
newest country. Protesters there read anti-war statements outside the U.S.,
British and Australian embassies. No one was surprised that anti-war activists in all the
major European cities had events planned for the weekend. Western European
public opinion is strongly opposed to the war and the governments of France,
Germany and Belgium took unprecedented diplomatic moves within NATO to hinder
U.S. plans for the alliance’s participation in an attack on Iraq. France--with
its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council--has proved to be
especially vexing to Washington. It turned out that expectations for the continental
European demonstrations were met or surpassed. In Berlin, a half a million
demonstrated, in Barcelona, half a million, in Madrid, an even larger turnout.
The Scandinavian capitals all hosted protests. Rome held a truly enormous event
that the French newspaper Le Monde reported involved three million people. Many
of the smaller cities and towns in almost every European country held sizeable
protests as well. Expectations for the demonstration in London were
especially high. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken every opportunity
to express support for George Bush’s war aims and has effectively served as
the war’s most articulate proponent. Anti-war activists hoped that a huge
turnout in the British capital would help to check Blair’s efforts on behalf
of the U.S. drive to war. The London police made plans for the demonstration
difficult by initially forbidding a gathering in Hyde Park. They were forced to
relent however and a million people--London’s largest protest ever--are
reported to have marched. A large protest took place as well outside of a Labor
Party event in Glasgow at which Blair was speaking. New York City was the site of the main U.S.
demonstration and despite extremely cold weather and the denial of a permit to
march past the UN building, at least a half a million demonstrators took part.
The protesters--many of whom traveled great distances to participate--had to
cope with aggressive police efforts to prevent them from moving freely around
the city. In Chicago, a large protest was held in the heart of the
city’s Indian and Pakistani communities. Organizers specifically condemned the
upcoming Immigration and Naturalization Service deadline for the registration of
Pakistani men as a repressive and racist move.
San Francisco, Los Angeles and numerous other cities
across the U.S. hosted protests as well. Even small towns and suburbs of cities
that had large protests held their own modest, but significant demonstrations to
oppose the drive to war. Other notable protests took place in Toronto, Mexico
City, and Sao Paulo, Brazil. In Tel Aviv, a demonstration of Israeli Jews and
Arabs took place that numbered 2,000. CONTINUITY OR DISCONTINUITY OF MOVEMENTS? Many commentators have made haste to compare and
contrast this anti-war movement with that of an earlier generation, the movement
against the war in Vietnam. A more relevant comparison, however, might be with
the anti-globalization movement that crystallized around the protests at the
World Trade Organization’s ministerial meeting in Seattle in 1999. That demonstration, and the long series of similar ones
at other trade and economic meetings in its wake, truly seemed to represent a
qualitative development in a world seemingly dominated by a resurgent free
market capitalism. The decentralized and global nature of the movement, the
process by which it made its plans and decisions and the content of its lively
protests caught the world’s attention and inspired renewed efforts at radical
critique of existing social arrangements. The September 2001 attacks, however, seemed to throw the
movement out of balance. The authoritarian and militaristic response of the U.S.
and other state powers seemed to discourage diversity and discussion within the
movements opposed to those repressive measures. Long-existing political
tendencies uneasy with the anti-globalization movement’s transparency and
unsuccessful in attempts to try to lead it were now back on more familiar
ground. Their influence in the anti-war movement increased and the memory of the
energy of the anti-globalization movement diminished somewhat. The international gathering most closely associated with
the movement, the World Social Forum held for three years running in Porto
Alegre, Brazil to counter the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
served as something of a barometer of this development. The first Social Forum
provided an arena for discussion for many of the figures and trends of the
movement. The third one--held earlier this year and so the first to be held
under the administration of Lula da Silva--was easily the largest one yet. While
its organizers proclaimed it a success, it was harshly criticized by writer and
anti-globalization activist Naomi Klein as having been “hijacked” by the
leaders of the Latin American electoral left. The European Social Forum, directly inspired by the
Porto Alegre gathering and held last year in Florence, Italy was well attended,
but organized almost entirely by elements attached to left organizations,
including successors of official Communist parties. The anti-globalization movement possessed such vitality
before the period of war and terror inaugurated by the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001
that no one can say its potential has been lost. It remains to be seen however,
if its critique of the world trend toward the curbing of state economic
intervention and regulation can develop and mature in a period in which the
state’s drive for security and repression may actually serve to put a brake on
further liberalization. WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH The anti-war movement has two enormous challenges before
it. It faces, first, a war that seems to be impending despite the hopes of the
millions who marched the weekend of Feb. 15. Second, the movement faces an
aftermath to war that may prove to be worse than the actual fighting. The rule of Iraq’s Ba'ath Party, dominated by Saddam
Hussein, is extremely fragile and has little chance of withstanding the U.S.
military onslaught threatening it. The Iraqi army is much weaker than it was in
its previous conflict with the U.S., and the morale of its regular troops is
rumored to be low as well. Crucial to any military conflict is the reaction of
the civilian population, and it is likely that the Iraqi populace will do no
more than seek to stay out of the way of invading troops. While no one knows
exactly how the events of the next few weeks will unfold, it is possible that
the anti-war movement will not get much of a war to oppose. What is more certain is what a writer in the ECONOMIST
referred to as the “unusual vulnerability of the civilian population.” By
this was meant in part the total dependence of people upon the state for food
rations. No state means--temporarily, at least--no food. Furthermore, most civilian casualties directly resulting
from the 1991 war were a consequence of the devastation wreaked upon Iraq’s
water and power infrastructure. A similar or more intense aerial bombardment
this time could have dire effects on systems that were never fully rebuilt after
the initial destruction. The impact of this scenario on already overtaxed Iraqi
hospitals could be catastrophic. And the chance that a repetition of the
destruction of the bomb shelter in Baghdad’s Al-Amiriyah neighborhood by a
stray missile on Feb. 13, 1991--which killed 400 people--takes place cannot be
ruled out. So in place of a war, the anti-war movement may be
confronted with a massive humanitarian disaster, compounded by a political
situation in which the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a more democratic
system than the one they have been subjected to come into conflict with U.S.
military rule aimed at achieving a substantial restructuring of the political
order of the region. While the 1991 nationwide insurrection of both Kurds and
Arabs against Ba'ath Party rule after Iraq’s defeat in the Gulf War was put
down with great violence, the desire for freedom behind it is not likely to have
disappeared with the revolt’s repression. The scenario facing the anti-war movement may not be
unlike that leading up to and following the U.S. war against Taliban rule in
Afghanistan. The bombing and the civilian casualties it produced were rightly
condemned. Interest in the war’s aftermath, however, in which the conditions
facing women, children and the rural poor have remained dismal under the rule of
regional warlords has not so far developed into a meaningful movement of
solidarity. So what in this extremely complex situation should the
anti-war movement do? There are statements circulating, such as the one authored
by the New York-based Campaign for Peace and Democracy called “We oppose Both
Saddam Hussein and the U.S. War on Iraq” that chart out the beginnings of a
foundation for a viable movement for solidarity with Iraq’s people.
Distributing and discussing them would be a contribution towards sharpening the
anti-war movement’s analysis of what confronts it. While the great distance and the scale of the need
involved make the provision of material aid in the aftermath of the conflict by
the anti-war movement difficult, perhaps some way to overcome these
obstacles--such as the organization of sister city programs--could be conceived
and carried out. Efforts could be made to organize speaking tours for
activists of the Iraqi opposition and victims of oppression by the Ba'ath Party
regime such as Kurds or the Marsh Arabs, whose unique and remarkable homelands
in the south of the country were intentionally dried up and depopulated by the
government as retribution for participation in the 1991 rebellion. Delegations of activists or interested persons could
visit Iraq’s cities and villages and bring back firsthand accounts of the
struggle to rebuild a country that has suffered so much due to authoritarian
government, international economic sanctions and the lust of the world market
for the country’s chief commodity, oil. None of these undertakings would be easy, but the situation confronting the anti-war movement is not an easy one, either. The energy and depth of feeling displayed in the massive outpourings of the weekend of Feb. 15 shows that a huge reservoir of talent and creativity exists within the movement. This potential is more than enough to sharpen, redirect and renew the effort to oppose a war that may have a disastrous impact on the people of Iraq and attempt to contribute towards the future of those same people. |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
