BY
PIP HINMAN
More than 1 million Australians marched against war on Iraq two weekends
ago. About 12 million people marched worldwide. The scale of the opposition
to the US-led drive to war is unprecedented and is acting as a brake on
Washington's plans for an oil war in the Middle East.
Being a part of the 500,000-strong protest in Sydney's Hyde Park on
February 16, one couldn't help but be moved by the powerful message we
generated simply by being there. People looked around in awe at each other
as the numbers swelled. Similar stories are told of other protests across
the country
While the movement is united around an immediate aim — stopping the
war — its size and character represents something more.
In the rich countries we're witnessing a decisive break with the post-World
War II consensus that ``democratic’‘
capitalism would deliver progress and liberty. The last few decades
of slow economic decline and the squeeze on wages and working conditions
have contributed to the present situation: people don't trust their rulers
anymore.
There's a strong revulsion against being lied to — about Iraq, about
the need for ``anti-terror’‘ laws which curb civil liberties and a myriad
of other things. Not only is there increasing concern about Washington's
plans to unleash, as US President George Bush put it, a ``war without end’‘,
there's increasing disillusionment in governments' respect for the ``rule
of law’‘, and the two-party duopoly that masquerades as
``democracy’‘.
The Bush gang's plan for global conquest — despite international opinion
and international law — is being widely viewed as nothing more than colonialism.
Its Security Strategy document, released last September declares
its right to launch ``pre-emptive’‘ war.
The Bush gang hopes to use a new UN Security Council resolution to find
Iraq in ``material breach’‘ of resolution 1441, thereby giving it ``clearance’‘
for an attack.
The US has already established a precedent for this in the war on Afghanistan.
Then, Washington simply declared that it was acting under Article 51 of
the UN Charter, which gives states under attack the right to use force
in ``self defence’‘. The UN Security Council did not challenge the US.
Similarly, the 1991 Gulf War was justified by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
However, this time the US and its allies are launching an invasion without
any state coming under attack from Iraq. Other US resolutions are flouted
by countries that do not come under attack, such as Israel, which for 35
years has flouted Security Council resolution 242 calling for an immediate
end to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the 1990s retreat of many
national liberation struggles, Washington is feeling confident. However,
while the US drive to war in opposition to international law might be successful
in the short term, it will bring with it massive global disillusionment
with the US ambition to impose naked imperialist domination over the world.
Crisis of legitimacy
Polls show that the majority of the world's people do not believe a case
has been made to justify the ``alliance of the willing’‘ launching a pre-emptive
strike on Iraq.
In Australia, the Coalition government is feeling the pressure. Splits
in the conservative camp have spawned groups such as Liberals against the
War and Rural Australians against the War, and prompted former defence
personnel, such as General Peter Gration, to speak out against the war.
Howard has retorted he was undeterred by ``the mob’‘, though his body
language said something else. Defence minister Robert Hill conceded the
protests did send the government a clear message.
Howard's approval rating has plummeted according to a Newspoll survey
published in the February 18 Australian, and he's banking on a war
to turn that around. But he seems to be badly miscalculating.
Australians are, by and large, aware of the issues surrounding this
war. You only have to talk to your neighbours, or overhear conversations
in the bus and on the streets, to register this. They are also furious
that as a vociferous proponent of war, Howard has still not consulted the
rest of the country.
The longer the ``coalition of the willing’‘ takes to come up with any
convincing evidence of the need for a pre-emptive strike, the more its
case unravels and the greater the skepticism and distrust builds.
Labor is also floundering. The fact that ALP leader Simon Crean manoeuvred
to get a spot on one of the rally platforms — where he was drowned out
by cries of ``No war, no war!’‘ — speaks volumes about how desperate the
ALP is to distance itself from the government's pro-war position. It's
not working however, as the same Newspoll shows confidence in Crean has
also fallen.
The overwhelming sentiment at the national rallies against any war —
with or without UN backing. Largely in response to this, the Greens and
the Democrats have firmed up their positions. The Democrats polled around
24,000 people on February 16 in Sydney on their position on the war: around
95% said no war, a tiny 4% supported a war with a UN mandate. This accords
with the popular chants at protests and the huge variety of home-made signs
and placards on display at the national rallies.
Many speakers at the Sydney rally, including Greens Senator Bob Brown,
John Pilger and the Muslim Women's Association’s Genan Dadoun received
huge applause when they emphasised the need for solidarity with the Iraqi
people.
The nationalist arguments of John Robertson, secretary of the NSW Trades
and Labor Council, however, fell flat. The emphasis he placed on opposing
the war because Australia would become more of a target for terrorists
barely received polite applause.
Building the movement of opposition
The mass anti-war sentiment — which the various peace coalitions and groups
are only just starting to mobilise in a political movement — represents
something significant. It's been less than two years since the 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the US-led ``war on terrorism’‘ promulgated by the pro-war
corporate media, began. In the face of blanket appeals to patriotism and
racism — the size of the rallies two weeks ago, at least in Australia,
did take some of us by surprise.
But for this anti-war movement to succeed in stopping this war before
it starts, it needs more than the mass rallies — important though they
are. It needs more than the local peace groups, the city-wide coalitions,
and the neighbourhood organising.
Firstly, it needs continuing mass action by all those sectors of Australian
society opposed to the war. The international student strike set down for
March 5 is an invaluable opportunity to dramatise young people's rejection
of the horrors of war. International Women's Day should be seized as an
occasion to demonstrate our disgust with war and solidarity with the women
of Iraq, as well as our opposition to diverting social spending to service
a war budget.
More importantly, however, the massive demonstrations of February 14-16
show that trade union action against war on Iraq, previously ridiculed
as ``extreme’‘ and ``unwarranted interference in politics’‘, is now overdue.
At the very least, it's time for all trades and labour councils to follow
the lead set by Unions WA, and launch industrial action if a war starts.
But the union movement should raise its sights — and plan industrial
action to stop the war before it starts. The ACTU executive should be called
upon to plan a national 24-hour stoppage demanding the return of Australian
troops as soon as possible.
Finally, a successful anti-war movement needs, or rather, it demands,
a new level of unity on the left to ensure that the movement does have
a chance of success.
The war, and opposition to it, are shifting politics to the left. While
a majority may not yet believe there can be an alternative to capitalism,
many are now prepared to entertain the possibility. A united left will
be much better prepared to meet the enormous opportunities presented now
than a disunited one.
As veteran US anti-war activist Fred Feldman put it recently: ``Together
with other struggles and conflicts in the world, the anti-war protests
have had an effect and we can have more. We have slowed the war-makers
down ... We are dealing with a deeply rooted war drive that is exploding
now and will explode on an even more savage scale in the future. But all
the power and all the decision-making are not in the rulers' hands.’‘
The challenge the anti-war movement faces today is to stop the savagery.
The challenge the left faces today is to present an alternative.
[Pip Hinman is a member of the national executive of the Democratic
Socialist Party and is a Socialist Alliance upper house candidate in the
NSW election.]
From Green Left Weekly, February 26, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
