The
Time for Talking Is Over
Those Against an Attack
on Iraq Must Do More than Shake their Heads at the Television
by George Monbiot
Dissident Voice
January 7, 2003
The rest of
Europe must be wondering whether Britain has gone into hibernation. At the end
of this month our prime minister is likely to announce the decision he made
months ago, that Britain will follow the US into Iraq. If so, then two or three
weeks later, the war will begin. Unless the UN inspectors find something before
January 27, this will be a war without even the flimsiest of pretexts: an
unprovoked attack whose purpose is to enhance the wealth and power of an
American kleptocracy. Far from promoting peace, it could be the first in a
series of imperial wars. The gravest global crisis since the end of the cold
war is three weeks away, and most of us seem to be asking why someone else
doesn't do something about it.
It is not often
that the people of these islands have an opportunity to change the course of
world events. Bush knows that the Americans' approval of his war depends, in
part, upon its credibility overseas: opinion polls have shown that many of
those who would support an international attack would withdraw that support if
they perceived that the US was acting alone. An international attack, in this
case, means an attack supported by Britain. If Blair pulled out, Bush could be
forced to think again. Blair will pull out only if he perceives that the
political cost of sticking with Bush is greater than the cost of deserting him.
Bush's war, in other words, depends upon our indifference. As Gramsci remarked:
"What comes to pass does so not so much because a few people want it to
happen, as because the mass of citizens abdicate their responsibility and let
things be."
There are
several reasons why most British people do not seem prepared to act. New
military technology has removed the need for a draft, so the otherwise
unengaged young men who might have become the core of the resistance movement
are left to blast imaginary enemies on their Gameboys. The economy is still growing,
so underlying resentment towards the government is muted; yet we perceive our
jobs and prospects to be insecure, so we are reluctant to expose ourselves to
trouble.
It also seems
that many people who might have contested this war simply can't believe it's
happening. If, paradoxically, we were facing a real threat from a real enemy,
the debate would have seemed more urgent. But if Blair had told us that we had
to go to war to stop Saruman of Isengard from sending his orcs against the good
people of Rohan, it would scarcely seem less plausible than the threat of
Saddam of Iraq dropping bombs on America.
These factors
may explain our feebleness. They don't excuse it. It is true that our chances
of stopping this war are slight: both men appear determined to proceed, with or
without evidence or cause. But to imagine that protest is useless if it doesn't
lead to an immediate cessation is to misunderstand its purpose and power. Even
if we cannot stop the attack upon Iraq, we must ensure that it becomes so
politically costly that there will never be another like it. And this means
that the usual demos will no longer suffice.
There have, so
far, been many well-organized and determined protests, and several more are
planned over the next six weeks. On January 18, demonstrators will seek to
blockade the armed forces' joint headquarters at Northwood, in north London.
Three days later, there'll be a mass lobby of parliament; at 6pm on the day the
war is announced, protesters will gather in almost every town center in
Britain. On February 15, there'll be a massive rally in London. These actions
are critically important, as they'll demonstrate the level of public
opposition. But they're unlikely, by themselves, to provoke one of Blair's
famous sweats. We must raise the temperature.
The Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament has already tried one bold and unprecedented measure:
seeking to persuade the courts to rule that attacking Iraq without a new UN
resolution would be illegal. But on December 17, the judges decided that they
not have the power to interpret the existing resolution. It seems that we now
have few options but to launch a massive, though non-violent, campaign of
disruption.
CND and the Stop
the War Coalition have suggested an hour's stoppage on the day after the war
begins. Many activists are now talking about building on this, and seeking to
provoke wider strike action - even a general strike.
This is, of
course, difficult and dangerous. Some general strikes have been effective,
forcing the tsar to agree to a constitution and a legislative assembly in 1905,
for example, reversing the Kapp Putsch in Berlin in 1920, and overthrowing the
Khuri regime in Lebanon in 1952. Others have been counter-productive, in some
cases disastrous. When the French general strike was broken in 1920, the labour
movement all but collapsed. Mussolini used the announcement of a general strike
in 1922 to represent himself as the only man capable of restoring order; he
seized power, with the king's blessing, after the fascists had routed the
strikers and burnt down the Socialist party headquarters. If we call for a
strike and almost everyone goes to work, Blair will see this as a sign that he
can do as he pleases.
But this is the
scale on which we should be thinking. If we cannot mobilize the workforce,
there are still plenty of means of concentrating politicians' minds. We could,
for example, consider blocking the roads down which Blair and his key ministers
must travel to meet their appointments, disrupting the speeches they make and
blockading the most important public buildings. Hundreds of us are likely to be
arrested, but that, as the Vietnam protesters found, serves only to generate
public interest. Non-violence, however, is critical: nothing did more harm to
the anti-war movement in the late 1960s than the Days of Rage organized in
Chicago by the Weathermen.
But peaceful,
well-focused and widespread nuisance, even if it irritates other members of the
public, forces the issue to the front of people's minds, and ensures that no
one can contemplate the war without also contemplating the opposition to the
war. We must oblige people to recognize that something unprecedented in recent
times is taking place, that Bush, assisted by Blair's moral slipstreaming, is
seeking to summon a war from a largely peaceful world. We will fail unless we
stage a political drama commensurate with the scale of the threat.
All this will,
of course, be costly. But there comes a point at which political commitment is
meaningless unless you are prepared to act on it. According to the latest
opinion poll, some 42% of British people - as against the 38% who support it -
want to stop this war. But if our action is confined to shaking our heads at
the television set, Blair might as well have a universal mandate. Are you out
there? Or are you waiting for someone else to act on your behalf?
George Monbiot is Honorary
Professor at the Department of Politics in Keele and Visiting Professor at the
Department of Environmental Science at the University of East London. He writes
a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper of London. His articles and contact
info can be found at his website: www.monbiot.com
Details of the actions already planned:
for the US: http://www.unitedforpeace.org
for the UK: http://www.stopwar.org.uk