Global
Peace Movement Still Vibrant
By
Marco Garrido
Asia Times
25 June, 2003
Although the war in Iraq is over, the global peace movement has not
gone away. Indeed, late last month, it went to Jakarta.
From May 18-21, representatives
of some of the largest anti-war coalitions around the world met in the
Indonesian capital to formulate a plan of action for dealing with the
emerging postwar order in Iraq. Delegates hailed from 24 countries and
included members of the Asian Peace Alliance, Stop the War Coalition
(UK), United for Peace and Justice (US), the Italian Social Forum, and
the Istanbul No to War Coordination-coalitions that had succeeded in
organizing massive demonstrations in their respective countries in the
months preceding the war.
The conference closed with
the publication of the Jakarta Peace Consensus. The Consensus condemns
the war in Iraq as "illegal, unjust, and illegitimate" and,
consequently, demands "an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops".
Further, it insists that Iraq's reconstruction be administered entirely
by Iraqis, calls on the United States to pay war reparations to Iraq,
and even proposes that the "perpetrators of war" (by this
is certainly meant US President George W Bush, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell) be tried as war criminals.
To these ends, signatories to the Consensus commit to organizing fact-finding
missions, constructing Occupation Watch Centers, developing "multiple
methods of engaging directly with Iraqis", including through an
information website, and - especially for Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell
- establishing an International People's Tribunal.
The Jakarta Peace Consensus
leaves little doubt that a good part of the global peace movement, which
mobilized so dauntingly in the months before and during the war, intends
to remain very much active in the years following it.
The 'other superpower'
Had there been no war or
threat of war, there would have been no movement, at least not one of
such unprecedented size and breadth. This "other superpower",
as the peace movement has been called, exists as a direct consequence
of the opposition the United States as superpower has generated, particularly
on the question of war with Iraq. It embodied the most cogent articulation
of the other side of the global debate over the war, effectively upping
the stakes for the governments caught in between.
While not joining the US-led
coalition carried consequences, the movement ensured that so did joining
it. Jonathan Schell, writing in The Nation, points out that "the
question everywhere was which superpower to obey - the single nation
claiming that title, or the will of the people of the Earth". Ultimately,
the coalition of the willing ended up little more than a coalition of
governments. "On the brink of war no public but the Israeli one
supported it under the conditions in which it was being launched - that
is, without UN support. Public opinion polls showed that in most countries,
opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than to a mere majority."
Clearly, the peace movement's
greatest strength is its broad base of support, a base that extends
more deeply into the United States than its policymakers acknowledge.
Fundamental US institutions such as churches and trade unions have come
out resolutely against war. Increasing numbers of Americans of all political
stripes, not just liberal activists, have swelled anti-war demonstrations
across the country.
As Schell points out, one
reason the movement has grown so fast is that it has been extremely
effective in getting its message out. Just as there would have been
no movement without the threat of so controversial a war, there would
have been no movement had there been no e-mail. The Internet has enabled
the peace movement to become increasingly agile and organized. Consider
the "rolling" demonstrations that swept the globe before and
during the war, erupting in multiple cities simultaneously.
A mistake, misguided policy,
or imperial ambition?
With such differences held
together tenuously under the cover of a broader and more immediate objective
- to stop the war - it is no wonder that the Stop the War Coalition
listed as the second item in its platform (right after "we oppose
the war") that "supporters of the Coalition, whether organizations
or individuals, will of course be free to develop their own analyses
and organize their own actions", wisely adding: "But there
will be many important occasions when united initiatives around broad
stop the war slogans can mobilize the greatest numbers."
But now that the war is over,
the one message that managed to motivate so broad a constituency is
no longer available. And so the diversity, if not actual incompatibility,
of political allegiances and agendas within the movement are becoming
distinct. For instance, such platforms as the Jakarta Peace Consensus,
although they purport unity, hardly reflect the full spectrum of opinion
encompassed by the movement. The Consensus itself represents the analysis
of harder-line cadres, an analysis that, for the most part, was virulently
anti-American - or anti-imperial - to begin with.
Certainly not everyone in
the peace movement shares this view. For most people, it took the war
itself, or its imminence, to drive them into the movement's fold. They
may not even consider themselves as part of a movement per se but are
simply protesting out of conscience. Had there been no threat of war,
there would have been no reason for them to protest.
The various elements that
make up the peace movement differ significantly on how deeply they cut
faith with the United States. In an approximate way, one can divide
the movement's range of politics into three categories: those who oppose
the war, those who oppose the Bush administration, and those who oppose
the general drift of the American state. The first category is by far
the largest, but since its opposition was specifically directed against
war with Iraq, now that the war is over, its numbers have receded. This
category includes, for example, the US trade unions that came out against
war with Iraq but generally supported the war on terror, including the
campaign in Afghanistan. The latter two categories - roughly, the liberal
internationalists and the anti-imperialists - have developed political
analyses that sustain them well beyond the war. They have come to dominate
the terms of debate within the peace movement.
Liberal internationalists
and anti-imperialists share a vision of the world with less militarism
and greater multilateralism and adherence to international law. They
disagree on whether they believe the United States can contribute meaningfully
to this vision. Liberal internationalists consider much of the foreign
and domestic policy of the Bush administration to be disastrous. On
the other hand, to an extent, some anti-imperialists welcome Bush's
brazenness because it serves to expose imperial designs that are much
larger than himself; indeed, that, in their view, have become an underlying
imperative for the American state. Arundhati Roy writes in The Guardian:
"[Bush] has exposed the ducts. He has placed in full public view
the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of
the American empire."
Even when they agree, they
seem to disagree. David Cortright, author and founder of the Win without
War Coalition, identifies "removing the Bush administration from
office and electing a new political leadership dedicated to international
cooperation and peace" as the peace movement's immediate goal.
Hampshire College Professor
Michael Klare frames the same goal in anti-imperialist terms: "The
next step is to expand the movement into a permanent opposition to the
administration's imperial design." His call sounds more ominous
because the rhetoric of anti-imperialism is informed by a more comprehensive,
and darker, vision of world dynamics, where such phenomena as globalization
and militarization go hand in hand and international institutions such
as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and even the United
Nations serve to perpetuate imbalances of power in favor of the world's
elite, led by the United States. For liberal internationalists, however,
international institutions such as the UN figure centrally in their
vision of a preferred world order.
A different kind of power
For all its internal fractures
and seeming fragility, the global peace movement has made the world
wonder whether the United States is as powerful as it seems. William
Pfaff, writing in the International Herald Tribune, notes that since
Bush was elected, assertions of military "hard" power have
diminished America's "soft" power. Soft power includes a country's
capacity to influence or persuade or simply to command respect and legitimacy.
This is due, in no small part, to the exuberance of peace campaigning
around the globe.
Perhaps more significant,
the peace movement has succeeded in making the US doubt itself. Speaking
before the National Press Club in Washington, DC, actor Tim Robbins
describes a US that has grown "bitterly divided" since September
11, 2001, that has had its democracy compromised as civil liberties
have been stripped, and that has incurred the wrath and rancor of the
world population. James Carroll, writing in the Boston Globe, complains
about how the war in Iraq has contributed to "the bad weather over
America": "America was not meant to be like this. We are no
longer ourselves."
Even Harvard history Professor
Charles Maier, who has long qualified America's imperial forays in the
past as undertaken reluctantly or with legitimate cause, finds little
to defend in this latest war. Maier writes: "If an empire, post-World
War II America was the empire that dared not speak its name. But these
days, on the part of friends and critics alike, the bashfulness has
ended ... Eventually, I fear - if not this year or even this decade
- historians will have fateful consequences to narrate if we persevere
in this myopic option."
With the aid of the peace
movement, this growing self-doubt may yet prove transformative.
Copyright 2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd.