HOME DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Superpower
in Suspended Animation
by
Kim Petersen
July
19, 2003
Weapons are an important factor in war,
but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive. The
contest of strength is not only a contest of military and economic power, but
also a contest of human power and morale. Military and economic power is
necessarily wielded by people.
-- Mao Zedong
Neither
the UN nor the veto-wielding Security Council members France, Russia, and China
posed a credible deterrent to the US thrust for global domination. There was
clearly a need for another countervailing force to fill the void or add its
clout to the overmatched dissenting nations. In stepped world opinion against
war. Unfortunately even the mass display of popular opposition was unable to
halt the Washington military-industrial nexus. Richard Johnson of Mendocino
News Service characterizes the peace movement since the Persian Gulf Slaughter
as being “in a state of suspended animation.” He asks, “What do you do after
organizing the largest worldwide demonstration in the history of the human
race?”
There
are anti-war activists who have expressed profound disappointment at the inability
to thwart the chickenhawks’ seeming juggernaut. A Sound Nonviolent Opponents of
War (SNOW) activist, Todd Boyle, states: “I'd rather change my activities than
expend any more of my meager life's energies opposing these 80 percent majority
in America.” Mr. Boyle was inspired by fellow dissidents but laments to his
peers: “I don't think you're getting through to most Americans and in fact
Americans are choosing the war path, until something happens that convinces
them it's not profitable.” In summary Mr. Boyle finds: “Americans are a bunch
of complete hypocrites, lacking a moral compass or intellectual integrity.”
Author
Dan Savage
faults SNOW’s “day in the park” activism as being ineffectual. He prefers the
activism of Not in Our Name (NION). NION activists call for a “more direct,
meaningful, and powerfully symbolic actions to stop the war.” Mr. Savage writes
of the “need to shine the light on the war effort in palpable ways, and in some
instances take risks that stem from the convictions of the cause.” He cites the
example of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie who went to
the Occupied Palestinian Territories and was killed by an Israeli driving a
bulldozer.
Britons
for Peace activist Lynette expresses the pathos of many: “I can't imagine how,
with so many people against the war, and with everyone knowing in their
hearts that it was wrong, we all still allowed it to happen. We are all guilty
here I think.” Across the Atlantic Alecia laments “the apathy of the American
people.”
Editorial-cartoonist
Ted Rall asks, “Where is the
left?”
As George W. Bush's aristocorporate junta
runs roughshod over hard-earned freedoms, as his lunatic-right Administration
loots $10 trillion from the national treasury, as his armies invade sovereign
nations without cause, as he threatens war against imagined enemies while
allowing real ones to build nuclear weapons, those charged with standing
against these perversions of American values remain appallingly, inexplicably
silent.
We have become a nation of cowards, and I
am ashamed.
The
above reflect many sentiments within the pro-peace movement. The defeats must
be acknowledged but also so must the victories. The fact that Iraq has been
attacked and occupied does not mean the peace has been lost.
The
regimes in Washington and London are starting to feel the heat from the failure
to uncover the Iraqi dictator’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It has
become patently clear that the US-UK governments didn’t know if Iraq had WMD or
not. Not-so-longed retired UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix was moved to sardonically
remark: “It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty
about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are.”
The invasion of Iraq was based upon something other than WMD, which most people
had suspected from the beginning of the charade.
The
anti-war movement had mobilized in unprecedently huge numbers before the most
recent phase of the Persian Gulf Slaughter. Millions took to the streets and
plazas around the world only to be dismissed as a focus group by US President
Bush.
The
New York Times christened public opinion as the second superpower. Many have
seized upon this designation and rightfully so. However, the power of the
people should be axiomatic. It has been shown many times throughout history
that people have the power to topple the most despotic, militaristic regimes.
The US-client regime of Cuban dictator Batista, Ceaucescu’s Romania, Communist
USSR followed by Communist East Germany, the apartheid regimes in Rhodesia and
South Africa, the tyrannical Belgian monarchy in the Congo, and colonial
British tyranny in India and Pakistan are just a few examples that spring
quickly to mind. The people of the world are the ultimate superpower and the
power of any single state must never be ceded a greater standing.
True,
at the present juncture the US cabal has managed to unleash its aggression upon
the citizenry of Iraq, secure its oil, and perilously occupy its territory. But
how secure is the oil? It seems nothing is secure in Iraq these days and that
includes the lives of the occupiers. The imperion is having trouble pumping out
the oil. It seems that even the oil infrastructure is subject to looting and
sabotage. There seems to be a message here. Iraqis seem to be saying: “If we
can’t have our country, our freedom, and our oil, well then we are not going to
let you occupiers have it either.”
Until
this point it can be conceded that the belligerents in the “Coalition of the
Killing” won a battle. They’ve had their weeks of violence. But there were
battles won by the ultimate superpower. The mass mobilization of world opinion
prior to the invasion was stirring. Other victories need to be recognized. The
NY Times joined the pro-peace cause. It is no small feat to have drawn any
support from the mainstream media, no matter how tepid it was. Abbie Bakan writes in
the Socialist Worker that Canada’s refusal to openly ally itself with
Washington’s chickenhawks was attributable to the anti-war expression in
Canada. Turkish citizens gave their government pause to refuse their military
supplier and comrade-in-cahoots to the extermination of the Kurdish minority.
It can be surmised that other governments also held back their support to the
US in the face of public acrimony.
The
chickenhawks greatly diminished UN authority and international law on the
pretext of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. This out-and-out
phony casus belli is now hanging in the open wind of the media. The
mainstream media was, by and large, a witting accomplice in helping drive home
the chickenhawks’ case for invading Iraq. Too often the media unquestioningly
mouthed the government line. Now, however, the mendacity of the British regime
is facing increasingly intense scrutiny at home. Prime Minister Blair is
sweating buckets over where to pin the blame for his lies. There was a feeble
attempt to insinuate rogue elements in the intelligence service but that
fizzled out. The intelligence agencies recorded the minutes of all government
meetings aware that their reputations might be smeared by a government intent
on sexing up the case for war. The government has egg on its sweat-beaded face.
An apology of sorts has been issued by Number 10 Downing Street to the
intelligence services.
Oonagh
Blackman writes in The
Mirror of Mr. Blair being advised to distance himself from President Bush
by Sidney Blumenthal, an aide to former US president Bill Clinton. Mr.
Blumenthal warns of the upcoming US election campaign: “It is going to become
intense to the extent that any foreign leader who associated himself with
Bush’s political goals will become an object of controversy. He will be an
indirect target.” Obviously this was advice unheeded as Mr. Blair had the
distinction of addressing a joint meeting of Congress while there to pick up
his Congressional Gold Medal. In the meanwhile the debacle has assumed even
murkier dimensions, as the body of Dr. David Kelly, allegedly the BBC Ministry
of Defense mole, was found.
The
opposition Conservative Party has leapfrogged into first place according to the
YouGov poll
conducted between 24 and 26 June. It reveals a loss in public support for Mr.
Blair’s Labour Party. In a personal blow to Mr. Blair, the MORI poll indicates
that over half of respondents think he is untrustworthy and 48 percent feel it
is time for him to resign. The 2 July MORI poll shows
that Labour is now neck-in-neck with the floundering Conservative Party while
Mr. Blair’s trustworthiness remains in the doldrums.
Polls
also reveal creeping doubt in the US about the chickenhawk’s war pretext. A poll by the
University of Maryland found that 52 percent of respondents indicated
belief that Mr. Bush and his circle were “stretching the truth, but not making
false statements” about Iraqi WMD. Poll results continue
to indicate a tide turning against Mr. Bush.
Yet
Mr. Bush trumpets that the evidence for WMD had already been uncovered in the
form of two trailers claimed to be biological weapons laboratories. This
bluster has been exposed, as the trailers are likeliest hydrogen production
units for weather balloons. The US media is catching on. Vanity Fair ran an
interview with Paul Wolfowitz in which he minimizes the importance of the case
for WMD in Iraq. War Minister Donald Rumsfeld pathetically proffered that
Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein destroyed them just prior to the invasion. NY
Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman
laments: “It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration;
it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation
into war.” The same question might be posed to his colleague Judith Miller who
wrote fallacious pieces on the flimsiest of evidence that buttressed the US
government case for war both before and after. There are even some stirrings in
Washington opposition circles. Senator Robert Byrd is pressing the government
on its deceitful case for war. Congressman Henry Waxman is also demanding
answers. The heat is on in Washington.
Unlike
in the UK, the intelligence agency became political fodder for the
chickenhawks. This was too much for a group of CIA
veterans who openly call for the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Former US Attorney
General Ramsey Clark informs “the movement to impeach George W. Bush has
entered a new and exciting phase.” The mass grassroots impeachment campaign is
garnering growing media attention for Mr. Bush who has been greeted by
“swelling street demonstrations” during his fundraising tour.
Mr.
Clark relays how “thousands of demonstrators, including anti-war activists and
members of the VoteToImpeach.org
campaign, confronted Bush on two separate occasions, in Los Angeles and San
Francisco. The effectiveness of the demonstrators resonated far beyond Bush's
ballrooms and was reported by media around the world.”
The
Bush cabal needs a diversion, something like another war to throw the media off
the scent. Congress is expected to fall behind the president as it usually does
in recent times of war. Iran and North Korea are increasingly the targets of
dangerous rhetoric. But Iran and North Korea are able to put up a stiffer
resistance than Iraq. Castro’s Cuba is thrown in for good measure. Cuba would
be a much easier victim. So where is the anti-war movement now?
Mr.
Bush and Mr. Blair argued that Iraq was an imminent threat as partial
justification of the invasion. This imminent menace doesn’t seem so plausible
now for the other states on the list of the War on Terrorism. Somehow the
chickenhawks must whip up a paranoia of fear again. However, with Mr. Bush’s
and Mr. Blair’s honesty under attack in the media, it should be much more
difficult to instill irrational fear in the homeland. This is a moment for the
pro-peace movement to press home the advantage.
US
lawyer David Mills, impassioned by his opposition to the chickenhawk power grab
in the US, searches for legal challenges to the invasion of Iraq and
collaborates with activists from all over. He maintains a positive attitude.
“Most defeat occurs because of a pessimistic outlook. Pessimism will beat you
every time. The internet has greatly boosted my optimism because of what I have
seen it do for Howard Dean and MoveOn.org. … I believe the avalanche will come
from the internet.”
The
risible faked Niger uranium vendor contracts should have resulted in a collapse
of the chickenhawk war edifice as soon as it came to light. Who can accept that
the vaunted US and UK intelligence agencies could bungle such an amateur
forgery that anyone at home could have determined as dodgy through the
Internet. It is absurd that such a pathetic forgery wormed its way into Mr.
Bush’s State of the Union address and that months passed before the CIA
director George Tennet was made out to be the fall guy although he somehow
retains the confidence of Mr. Bush’s administration. All kinds of
contradictions have been uttered from US-UK government sources but so far no
heads have rolled. It is utterly amazing.
There
must be no letup in the pressure, rather a ratcheting up. Mike Langridge,
coordinator of Britons for Peace argues the need for action:
So who's to go first? Bush, Rice, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and their cabal? Or Blair, Straw, Hoon and their cronies?
Neither, unless we keep up the pressure -
even moreso [sic] than we've done to date. If Bush goes, Blair's position will
be weakened enormously, and the reverse also applies.
Victory
of a great sort is at hand for the ultimate superpower but people must seize
the moment. The Washington and London regimes are on the defensive. Now is the
time to go on the offensive. This is the time to fill the streets with people
in greater numbers than ever before. People know they have been duped and
people must demonstrate that they will not accept government lies. A display of
people power will set a precedent of intolerance to violent lies a drive a
wedge in the war machinery.
But
again we mustn’t disillusion ourselves; even if we fill the world’s streets
with twice the numbers as in mid-February, it may not have the desired impact.
As a one-shot or two-three-shots event the efficacy of protest diminishes. From
my vantage point here in China where opposition to war was confined to talking
heads, this is all easy enough for me to say. Nevertheless, momentum needs not
only to be built but also sustained.
The
pro-peace movement must also be ready to explore new avenues of protest.
“Non-violence
in politics is a new weapon in the process of evolution. Its vast possibilities
are yet unexplored,” said Mohandas Gandhi. This still holds today.
Boycotts
are reported to have affected some US companies’ bottom lines but still not
enough, at this time, to have the chickenhawks rethink policy. Needless to say
big the military-industrial complex and related companies are raking in the
blood money.
As
consumers and wage laborers we can remove our labor and reduce consumption
until the government bends to people power-- a general strike, if you like. It
will have a more powerful impact than a few hours of protest. It calls for
greater sacrifice on the part of people but what is this sacrifice compared to
the lives of innocents in war. The human rights we enjoy today have been earned
through great sacrifice of those brave people who fought before us. If world
opinion is to earn superpower status it must effect change and it must be
prepared to sacrifice and accept great responsibilities.
The
world must stand up against evil in all its forms: the occupation of Iraq, the
plight of the Palestinians, the POWs languishing in Guantánamo Bay, being a
bystander to epidemics and famine in Africa, and other injustices.
Some
people urge caution leading into the next US election. Mr. Boyle recommends to
activists: “Just walk away [from mainstream society].” On the contrary, the
regimes are perspiring. Now is the time to mobilize again -- for many reasons.
The
iron’s hot.
Kim Petersen is an English teacher
living in China. He can be contacted at: kimpetersen@gyxi.dk