BY MALIK MIAH
SAN FRANCISCO — In the largest anti-war protest since the peace marches of the Vietnam War era, some 200,000 people filled the streets here on January 18. Demanding "No war against Iraq", the demonstrators were a representative cross-section of US society. Young children, high school and college students, trade unionists, Vietnam veterans, environmentalists and business owners joined together to oppose US President George Bush's war drive.
The 2.7-kilometre march from Embarcadero Street, down Market Street, to Justin Herman Plaza at the Civic Centre took four hours for all the protesters to complete. Demonstrators came from up and down the US west coast, travelling by car, bus, train and foot.
The breadth of the participation was reflected in the number of hand-made signs making pointed demands on President George Bush's war cabinet and opposing the steady drumbeat for war. One of my favourite signs was "The axis of evil: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld", complete with photos of the three. Others included "Not in our name", "An Average American for peace", "Jobs not war", "No to racism", "No war for big oil" and "We are the true patriots".
Another telling placard was a photo of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Junior, who was assassinated in 1968. King had opposed the Vietnam War and his January birthday is now an official holiday.
In Washington, DC, 500,000 marched and rallied. Smaller demonstrations occurred across the country. The San Francisco and Washington marches were initiated by the International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) coalition and endorsed by thousands of groups.
Speakers included elected officials, actors, student leaders, union officials and representatives of Arab and Muslim organisations. It marked the coming together of long-time peace activists and a new generation of citizen activists who were taking part in their first protests against government policies.
"Today's demonstrations shattered the myth of a consensus for war", said ANSWER's Gloria La Riva and co-chair of the San Francisco rally. "The world spoke with one voice today in denouncing the Bush administration's rush toward a new conflict."
The genuine feeling expressed not only by speakers but also by the boisterous shouts and chants of the demonstrators is that the US war on Iraq can be stopped. And if it can't, the world will know that all Americans are not willing participants in the impending slaughter of innocent Iraqi men, women and children and the death of US soldiers.
Bush and right respond
Bush wasn't in town. But afterwards he and other cabinet members said the protesters and other critics of US policies were naive and preparations for an invasion would continue. Some 150,000 US (and 50,000 British) troops will be in place to invade Iraq by mid-February.
In response to the massive success of the January 18 mobilisations, the pro-war demagogues pulled off their gloves and called the protesters traitors. David Horowitz, in his online column in FrontPageMagazine.com, wrote, "Americans who care about their country and its future should think about the following. This anti-American pro-terrorist movement is now larger than the anti-Vietnam pro-Communist 'peace' movement was until the very end of the sixties. Yet there is no draft. Before the draft, the anti-Vietnam movement was very small. Its demonstrations were numbered in the hundreds of participants, not even the thousands."
At the demonstrations, only a tiny few pro-war crusaders showed up. In general, support for an invasion and the use of pre-emptive war is based on an acceptance of Bush's argument that "rogue" states could arm terrorists rather than believing that Iraq, North Korea or Iran are capable of attacking the United States.
Some in powerful positions question the go-it-alone war policy of the Bush government. Alienating European allies and questioning the value of the United Nations, some worry, could lead to more instability in the world. Several editors of major newspapers have expressed the need for a slower approach.
"Last weekend's protests should send a message to Washington that many Americans are sceptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq", the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote after providing two pages of articles and photos of the march. "The size and composition of the crowds — found in small towns and big cities — show the breadth of the concern. One of the extraordinary facets of this rising resistance, which is now detectable in opinion polls, is that it has emerged even before Americans have had to confront any of the ugly consequences of a military battle."
The editors of the New York Times, who support the Bush gang's "war on terrorism", cautioned the "war cabinet [that it] would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the administration's plans because of the shock of September 11 and many harbor serious doubts about his march toward war".
Of course, opposition to war before it begins is not uncommon. Before the first Gulf war in 1991, a majority of those polled opposed going to war. As soon as US President George Bush Senior launched the war, an overwhelming majority backed the "commander-in-chief" and the soldiers. The Bush junior war cabinet expects a similar upswing if and when the bombs start falling.
'Jobs not war'
Yet it is significant that support for a pre-emptive attack is declining as more Americans learn about the UN inspections and the fact that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction or links to the al Qaeda terrorist gang. Polls show that most Americans want the inspectors to have more time.
Another reason for the shift in attitudes is the Bush administration's arrogance and hypocrisy in dealing with North Korea, a member of Bush's proclaimed "axis of evil". The North Korea government's bold move of kicking out UN inspectors — while inspectors are still in Iraq — and then demanding that Washington negotiate a non-aggression pact has many in the US confused. Bush says diplomacy can work with North Korea but not Iraq.
The rise of a new anti-war movement also occurs in the context of economic uncertainty. Thousands of workers have lost their jobs and more are expected to if Bush invades and occupies Iraq. The airline industry, which was a special victim of the 9/11 attacks, is in crisis. The second-largest US airline United has filed for bankruptcy. Others could follow with a war. In such a climate, the slogan "Jobs not war" has a strong resonance.
Unlike the first Gulf War, which many in the US believed was justified because of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, Americans are uneasy with or oppose the idea that the US government and military should initiate war against rulers and countries on the basis of the president declaring them "evil" or a "terrorist threat". Trust in Bush is declining.
The rising anti-war movement, with its diverse slogans and demands, is focused on stopping the US war drive. That's why young and old, workers and professionals, came to San Francisco, Washington and other cities around the country. No-one is convinced by the government's and the right-wing's argument that patriotism means giving unconditional support to the Pentagon. Anti-war political consciousness is growing.
In addition, the erosion of civil liberties and democratic rights because of the war drive is causing a domestic backlash. A number of protesters carried signs that protested against racist immigration and security policies.
The emergence of an anti-war and anti-big brother consciousness is new and very significant. It did not exist during the war on Afghanistan. And it is not likely to disappear with the onset of an actual US-led war on Iraq. Americans are key to the global anti-war movement. All eyes are now on the next national protests on February 15 in New York and in San Francisco.
From Green Left Weekly, January 29, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.