Mobilize For The Next Phase
The Anti-war Movement Shifts Gears
by
Jessica Azulay and Brian Dominick
Dissident Voice
February 22, 2003
Unprecedented in size, breadth and diversity, the world-wide
February 15 demonstrations proved invaluable to the campaign against renewed
war on Iraq. The millions of us who rallied and marched for peace in well over
600 cities from New York to Rome to Ramallah to Melbourne, communicated in no
uncertain terms that the entire world really does say no to war. The level of
our effectiveness can be debated, but there is no question we significantly
impacted the discussion taking place at high, narrow levels. Millions of us.
Our
organizing efforts succeeded in many ways. The demonstrations captured the eyes
and ears of the mainstream press, and for the most part we have received
relatively positive and accurate reports, including coverage of our numbers and
our message. Clearly, we have broadened the debate, and we have opened a window
of opportunity. What we do with that opportunity will be decisive.
The Next
Step: Regroup
The
International ANSWER coalition is calling for a demonstration in Washington, DC
on March 15. That is only three weeks away, and many of us are deciding whether
to heed their call and work to organize people in our communities to attend
that demonstration. Still reeling from last weekend's mobilization efforts, we
must weigh seriously the costs of expending more energy traveling to big cities
for long, cold days, instead of doing more education and outreach work at home.
We have
seen that large, impressive demonstrations are crucial to our movement and
provide us with great opportunities in terms of media coverage, coalition
building, and collective expression. But at this point most organizers are
probably better off regrouping and recouping in our communities. Now that we
have expressed ourselves massively, it is time to lay better and more solid
foundations for a continued antiwar movement, making community-based
connections and doing real, on the ground educating and organizing. We need to
work towards deepening the commitment of those who are already opposed to war
and organizing locally to inspire more people to take action.
We aren't
at all suggesting people not go to DC on March 15. What we are saying is, if
you want to contribute in a fundamentally different way, at this critical
moment your energy is almost certainly better spent on local outreach and
education, or developing stronger organization and dedication at home. Washington
isn't going to think we've all evaporated if we don't show up in the hundreds
of thousands on March 15. Millions of demonstrators dispersed throughout the
country, accompanied by massive worker strikes, student walkouts and thousands
committed to civil disobedience and direct action would exhibit resistance
power on a radically new level.
So what
are the keys to attracting millions more to active opposition and amplifying
the commitment of those already involved? The answers are simple, but of course
they will involve substantial work.
Outreach
and Education
Without a
doubt, we have piqued the interests of the general population. Tireless effort
has begun to pay off, and suddenly dissent is not all that unpopular. There has
never been a better opportunity to change minds than this very moment. And lest
we get caught up in the fervor of our own ruckus, we must remember many
Americans still support the war, and many who oppose it are irresolute in their
antiwar convictions.
A recent
poll conducted by Knight-Ridder News Service revealed that most Americans do
not even know rudimentary facts about the Iraq crisis. For instance, 86% of
respondents were not aware that there were, in fact, no Iraqi-born hijackers
involved in he September 11th attacks. Two thirds of Americans think Iraq has a
nuclear weapons arsenal. The list goes on, and it is sufficiently disturbing.
The same
poll also showed that the more people are familiar with the facts, the less
likely they are to support an invasion of Iraq. Though this may be obvious to
most of us, the results of the Knight-Ridder poll illustrate conclusively that
there remains much ground to be covered. It does little good to make
sophisticated arguments about the nuances of international law or the
particulars of various alternatives to invasion and occupation, when most
pro-war Americans still think Iraq stands accused of planning 9/11 or that
Hussein has recently threatened Israel with biological and chemical weapons.
Lacking
the ability to seize control of television stations, we need to bring
information to the public through more customary methods. Rallies and marches
show our strength, but sloganeering is largely unpersuasive (and understandably
so). We need to be producing more alternative media and disseminating it
widely. We need to hit the streets with leaflets and bring the antiwar message
to every neighborhood, every workplace, every place of worship, every community
center, every shopping mall, every living room. Now is the phase for teach-ins
and canvasses, coffee houses and soap boxes.
Intensification
and Radicalization
In a front
page New York Times article published Monday, February 17, reporter
Patrick Tyler states:
“In his
campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be
eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who
flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they
are against war based on the evidence at hand. Mr. Bush's advisers are telling
him to ignore them and forge ahead, as are some leading pro-war Republicans.”
We have
become a threat; but can we deliver? Policy makers are debating right now
whether or not they have to heed our dissent. Now we must make it clear to them
that there will be political and economic consequences if they decide to ignore
our protest, and be prepared to follow through. We have shown the Bush Administration that we know how to
organize on a national and international scale, against its interests and for
our own. Two major demonstrations within a month of each other made the point
loud and clear: our movement has the numbers and the capacity to mobilize, and
there is no hint of dissipation in sight. What remains to be seen, however, is
whether our movement, which is made up mostly of people who were virtually
uninvolved a year ago, is radical and committed enough to hold its ground and
even raise the stakes in spite of Bush’s slick rhetorical maneuvers.
No doubt
the White House and State Department are making decisions in a new context. As
a result we should expect attempts to pacify the demands of the least radical
elements of our movement—those calling for war only through the UN Security
Council, or harsher inspections, or more proof, and other reformist
qualifications. Our protest will likely force the White House to slow down
some, build more international support, and work through the UNSC. We should
consider it an important short-term victory that we see such moves, but we must
realize that a change in tune or tone does not equal an actual change in the
administration's goals of massive war and destruction, leading to control of
Iraq, its people and its resources. History has shown that the US is extremely
effective at bribing its way through UN proceedings, that further inspections
are just a delay in the march to war, and that evidence of Iraqi misdeeds is
easy enough to fabricate and distort.
Besides an
acknowledgement of dissidents’ power, the above quote from the New York
Times highlights these shortcomings. First, by stating Bush’s goal is to
“disarm Iraq,” the real motives of our government are being ignored in an
article flattering and sympathetic to its most vocal critics. Additionally, the
author suggests that most protestors are “against the war based on the evidence
at hand.” While that may not in fact be true, it certainly is the lowest common
denominator. The article, completely in line with establishment thought on the
topic, implies that we are being heard but our message is unclear, easily
distorted and misunderstood.
It is
probably true that the majority of this fledgling antiwar movement believes
Iraq is among the most important issues faced by the US and the world. But if
the actual threat posed by a Saddam Hussein whose military capacity is
thoroughly contained, is in fact negligible, why should Iraq be a policy
priority in the first place? As long as the US population is convinced that
Hussein is a threat to our own security, the policy of "pre-emptive"
strike will remain an option. So if the government's job is to stir up
hysteria, ours is to promote reasonable understanding of the issues and an
accurate evaluation of the threat.
So while
we work on building our movement, let's pay very close attention to the
arguments we are making. We need a movement that opposes all wars of aggression
(instead of opportunistically differentiating between this war and Afghanistan
or Kosovo/Serbia, as if those were reasonable). We must unequivocally oppose
pre-emptive strikes and war for oil or power, plus demand an end to the
sanctions and current air strikes against Iraq. We cannot allow the debate to
be distracted by petty differentiations between an exclusive US/UK invasion and
a UN-backed invasion.
Further,
we need a movement that raises a stink about unilateral and politically
motivated weapons inspections and states loud and clear that even some evidence
of some illicit arms in Iraq is not proof of Hussein's intention or capability
to attack anyone (let alone the United States). In fact, such findings don't
compare in the slightest to the world's biggest arsenal of nuclear, chemical
and biological warheads right here at home. Military containment has indeed
worked for 12 years and should be applied to ALL potentially dangerous countries,
regardless of their stature or venue.
In other
words, we need to move the conversation to the left, and work to pull the whole
antiwar movement in a more radical, yet sustainable direction. Rationality and
fact are on our side.
Radicalization
of those we're reaching more regularly is the first, and perhaps most
important, of the threats we pose to the establishment. Many who oppose war on
Iraq state that they wish the government would focus more on the supposed war
against anti-Western terrorism, instead of an approach that takes into account
the inspirational roots of such threats. An important part of our antiwar
organizing is to highlight the connections between the proposed invasion of
Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and repression masquerading as counter-terrorism.
In addition, if those new to question US foreign policy also begin taking an
interest in an array of other concerns (health care, immigration, labor issues,
police misconduct, and so on), we threaten not only the government's aspirations
of empire, but also its domestic agenda—indeed it's domestic footing. Facing
such prospects of losing power, corporate and government leaders will have no
choice but to take pause.
From
Threat to Action
Choosing
tactics is a delicate matter, and since September 11 the Left has mostly
treated it with kid gloves. But peaceful marches and rallies, no matter how
large, won't keep Bush at bay for long. Increased popularity, sympathy and
commitment among all elements of the general antiwar movement will provide
enhanced opportunities for more active resistance. Not everyone is ready or
able to take great risks in standing against war, but we're selling newcomers
short at this point if we doubt the bulk of our movement will support those who
can and will raise the heat.
Various
forms of civil disobedience and confrontational, nonviolent action have already
manifested themselves among sectors of our movement. They have been met with
predictable hesitation among some, but with delight among many more. Confrontations
witnessed on February 15 in New York led to overwhelming condemnation of the
police, instead of protesters, among first-time demonstrators and much of the
mainstream media alike. Even CNN has blasted the NYPD for its blatant
misbehavior!
The array
of tactical options at our disposal is too much to cover here, but it is at
last within reach once again. Coming weeks provide a significant opportunity
for inspiring ourselves and one another to take more direct action. We should
take care to separate risky actions from larger, permitted demonstrations; to
remember that there are many diverse ways that people choose to raise their
level of protest; and be mindful of the hierarchies and cliques that often form
around those who can take risks or tend to practice the more
prevalent/spectacular forms of CD and direct action. But in any way we can, we
should take action!
We on the
Left are not super-human and we have limited time and resources, so we have to
make difficult decisions about priorities. Right now our movement is headed
into a rut of trying to mobilize for large demonstrations on a monthly basis.
But after February 15, we have the opportunity to move in a different
direction. Instead of working towards large mobilizations and making arguments that
are watered-down to appeal to a more mainstream crowd, we should shift gears
and shift focus. It’s time to make stronger arguments and entrench commitments
while doubling our efforts to get the basic facts to more and more Americans in
our own communities.
Jessica Azulay and Brian Dominick are organizers and journalists who live in Syracuse,
New York. They welcome responses at uts@tools4change.org
They have created several downloadable organizing tools
to compliment this article, available on Z Net in PDF format:
“Inspect This!” Is a flyposter tying sanctions
against Iraq to the proposed invasion of Iraq, available in legal size (8.5” x
14”) and ledger size (11” x 17”).
http://www.zmag.org/pdf/inspect-this_legal.pdf
http://www.zmag.org/pdf/inspect-this_ledger.pdf
“War Through the U.N? Not Even Then” is an 8.5” x 11”
flyposter.
http://www.zmag.org/pdf/un-war_letter.pdf
“NONE of the 9/11 Hijackers Was Iraqi… And Other
Facts Most Americans Don’t Know” is a brochure dispelling basic yet common
myths about the Iraq crisis.
http://www.zmag.org/pdf/none_brochure.pdf
“Why are Millions Marching Against War” is a brochure
explaining the general reasons why people in the U.S. and the world oppose an
invasion of Iraq.
http://www.zmag.org/antiwar_leaflet.pdf