|
CounterPunch
November
6, 2002
Questions of
War
by MATT SIEGFRIED
All across the United States, particularly since
the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to back the Bush Administration's
drive to war with Iraq, coalitions have formed, teach-ins conducted
and the pavement pounded in opposition to the latest American
assertion of power. The nascent movement is a product of the
coming together of a number of forces. A small but not insignificant
number of young people awakening to political activism for the
first time with those who have been reenergized by the brazenness
of the government's current imperial designs. It's backbone is
made up by many of the existing movements, campaigns and organizations
of the left. The discourse among the US left has decisively turned
to the possible war.
While the labor movement has largely
followed the lead of the Democrats, who in their large majority
backed the call to war, some notable unions, union locals and
regional councils have begun to oppose the war. Still in a minority
these unions, if activated in their stated opposition, could
lend the critical weight to the anti-war movement allowing it
to become truly mass. Along with the many anti-interventionist
and "peace" campaigners the "global justice"
and Palestine solidarity movements are also attempting, with
varying degrees of success, to bring the war into their work
and their concerns into the anti-war movement. The relationship
of these two struggles along with the labor movement to the burgeoning
anti-war movement is an important component to the recomposition
of the radical left in the US. It will also play a key role if
the anti-war movement is to grow in a mass and anti-imperialist
direction.
Questions of war and resistance are often
decisive to any political outlook. They have long played profound
roles in the growth and, unfortunately, the decline of challenges
to the status quo, including the revolutionary opposition to
capitalism. It is with this in mind that we should look at some
of the questions now put to the movement as it looks to define
itself and seeks to build allies.
Among the issues of great importance
to the anti-war movement in the US are how to view and relate
to the Democratic Party, the United Nations and the Palestinians'
life or death struggle with the Israeli occupation. Brevity allows
for only an incomplete appraisal of these questions.
Some have argued for the anti-war campaign
to look to and promote Democrats who say they oppose this war,
or at least this war as it is being pursued by the White House.
They argue that in the context of the recent elections it is
essential that we try to shift the balance in Congress among
the Democratic Party towards an anti-war stance. To do this we
should make Iraq an issue among the Democratic base to influence
the candidates as they contend the national elections. In this
way, at the very least, the Bush Administration will have a more
difficult time pushing forward their agenda.
That is the limit of the vision of "anti-war"
wing of the Democratic Party.
This is a false notion on a number of
levels. The Democrats as a party have never blocked, or even
attempted to block, a Republican administration seeking the power
to wage war. Those Democrats like Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard,
both black members of Congress form the South who questioned
the post-September 11th consensus and America's blank check to
Israel in its war against the Palestinians, were unceremoniously
isolated and driven out of office by the Democratic Party leadership.
It is an axiom of American politics that on foreign policy (which
must be said is a continuation of domestic policy) the two major
parties close ranks, meaning that the American ruling class closes
ranks. The Democratic Party has held the Presidency for a little
over half of the fifty or so US military interventions since
World War Two. These include the Korean and Vietnam wars resulting
in the death of millions of people.
The Democrats placate their base by saying
that they do not rush to war and demand that the administration
first convince them of its necessity. Of course, it is always
easiest to convince those who wish to be convinced. Yet another
testimony to the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party that they
were "convinced" by Bush and Company. That is by a
virtually illiterate President and the knot of Christian fanatics
on their knees and praying for the end-time in the White House
that tell him what to say.
It would be a great danger to this movement
in formation if it were to cede its voice to those who do not
share its commitment to stopping the war. The movement must win
allies based on its own strength or we will build the strength
of others.
Others wish to make the US accountable
to the United Nations as a way to undermine the administration's
"unilateralism". Citing international law and the opposition
of those anti-militarists of long standing; the French ruling
class through the medium of Chirac's government and the blood-soaked
Russian oligarchy. They believe that by having the US work through
the United Nations it will be forced to moderate its plans. The
real concern of these allies and rivals is not the plight of
the Iraqi people but their oil.
They'd like to negotiate with the Americans
a cut of the vast Iraqi oil money, or at least what Iraq already
owes them. The United States has so far been reticent to invite
others to feast at the table of a "liberated" Iraq's
resources. Alas, those who wish the US to work through the UN
may get what they asked for which will differ little in results
from a "unilateral" American war. I am sure that it
will be of great consolation to the bereaved families of dead
Iraqis that the UN, that mark of civilization, was fully consulted
before the US dropped bombs on their homes. The United Nations,
despite its pretences, cannot escape the reality of imperialism
to which it is indebted for its continued existence and of which
it is nearly always a tool.
Do we have no recourse to international
law? As the US has sought to make clear recently, international
law means nothing unless the United States sees itself as bound
to it. Furthermore international law, like all law, is not neutral
because the states that enact and enforce those laws are not
neutral. They have a class character like all the ruling institutions
of society. They reflect the interests of those in power, meaning
those with wealth. If the oppressed could hold the oppressor
accountable through the forum of international law and the United
Nations would the Palestinians, with literally scores of UN resolutions
in their favor, still walk the earth a stateless people whose
"self-determination" is delineated by the proximity
of the nearest Israeli tank?
In the name of "inclusivity"
some opposed to the war wish to narrow the focus of the movement
exclusively to an American attack on Iraq, but many of the most
resolute campaigners against that assault come to the movement
with their own concerns. The anti-war struggle has a special
responsibility to the Arab population in the US as well as in
the Middle East. Any new war will certainly exacerbate the post-September
11th witch-hunt further eroding the civil rights of Arab Americans
and immigrants as well heightening the hostility towards all
Arabs and muslims, particularly politically active Arabs. Their
defense must be made paramount if the movement wishes it's commitment
to human rights to be more than lip service. The Palestinian
solidarity campaign in the US has seen dramatic gains since the
resumption of the intifada against Israeli occupation. They point
to the US's thorough sponsorship of Israel to the tune of billions
of dollars a year. They point out that Israeli soldiers pull
the triggers of American guns. That Israeli pilots drop American
bombs from American planes. The United States is already engaged
in a proxy war with an Arab country- Palestine. Does a movement
opposing an American war on the Arab country of Iraq really have
nothing to say about the American war on the Arab country of
Palestine? This is a great challenge to the anti-war movement.
It must face this challenge if it is to become a place that those
most effected by American aggression can look too for solidarity.
But the anti-war movement must be more than that. It also must
be a vehicle through which they can contribute their experiences
and perspective. Without the incorporation of those experiences
and perspectives the movement will remain too white and whose
professed internationalism will be disingenuous at best. These
are big questions whose answers cannot be imposed on the movement,
but only come to by the movement as it seeks to be increasingly
effective. The immediate and urgent tasks remain to organize
as broad a layer of people as possible who, for whatever reason,
are against the coming war.
Those of us who describe ourselves as
socialists and revolutionaries cannot build the movement as we
wish it would be but as it is. Though always with an eye to where
it must go if it is to fulfill its own stated goal of stopping
the war on Iraq. As anti-imperialists in the heart of the most
powerful imperialist country the world has seen we have exceptional
difficulties and duties before us. What those militants do in
other countries whose movements and consciousness are more developed
give an education in the possibilities of struggle. We will undoubtedly
follow the lead of countries whose battles give immeasurable
support to the voices of dissent here in the US. Increasingly
political activism is blurring those national boundaries that
artificially divide us, our struggles being so connected that
their resolution is impossible in national isolation. The United
States wishes its empire to extend to every corner of the world.
So too must our resistance.
MATT SIEGFRIED writes for the Irish journal
Forthwrite.
He can be reached at: almata@hotmail.com
Yesterday's
Features
Michael Wolff
The Streets
of Baghdad
Tariq Ali
Travel
Diary for a Post-9/11 World
Jeremy Scahill
Live from Basra:
Iraq's Oil Belt Prepares for War
Annie Higgins
Why Are
They Here?
a Report from Jenin
Bruce F. Cole
Unexpected Allies, Unsung Heroes
Andrew Cockburn
War
on Iraq:
Operation Just Because 2?
Edward Lazarus
The Death Penalty Paradox
Will Youmans
Goodbye
and Good Riddance
The End of the Two-State Solution
Ben Roberts
Bush vs. Robin Hood
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 26
/ 27, 2002
Michael Wolff
A Place
of Tears
Ilija Trojanow
Bali Mon Amour
Ben Tripp
Crocodile Tears
Hope Shand and Silvia Ribeiro
The Great Containment:
GM Fallout from Mexico to Zambia
M. Junaid
Alam
The Wolf Who Cried Wolf:
Charging Anti-Semitism & Extending the Iron Wall
Gavin Keeney
The Fusion Thing:
Landscape + Architecture
Adam Engel
A Good Man is Hard to Misfit
Anis Shivani
Is America Becoming Fascist?
Jason Leopold
Is Thomas White Fit to Lead the Army?
Philip Farruggio
Let Them Eat (Crumb) Cake
Josh Frank
The Grassroots of Hope
Anthony Gancarski
Concerned Citizen: episode 5
Night School
M. Shahid
Alam
The Civilizing Mission
October 25, 2002
Wayne Madsen
Pappy
Bush on Wellstone:
"Who Is This Chickenshit?"
Stuart Timmons
Harry
Hay Dead at 90:
He Paved the Way for Modern Gay Activism
Vanessa Jones
Australia
Votes Green:
Historic No Vote to US War Plans
Ben Terrall
Rep.
Tom Lantos' Big Lie
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Behind
the Drive for War:
The Escalating Bush Military Budget
Will Youmans
Israel's and Divestment
Norman Madarasz
Lula
on the Verge
October 24,
2002
Jo Freeman
How the
Christian Coalition Boosts Israel
Ben Tripp
George
W.: Caught Between Iraq and a Hard Place
Harry Browne
Ireland's Dreary Yes to Nice
Anis Shivani
A Guide
for the Perplexed:
the Major Countries of the World as Defined by the Office of
Strategic Influence
T.W. Croft
America's
New Improved War
William Hughes
A Free
Press, But for Whom?
Alan Farago
Jeb Bush and the Environment
October 23,
2002
Daniel Wolff
Pataki,
Witt and the Indian Point Nuke
Wayne Madsen
A Saudiless
Arabia
Sam Bahour
and Paul de Rooij
Abritrary
Imprisonment
Chris White
Why I Oppose
the US War on Terror:
an ex-Marine Sergeant Speaks Out
Anthony Gancarski
Back to Bali
Adam Engel
Twilight
(of the Idols) Zone
Robert Fisk
How to Shut Up Your Critics
October 22,
2002
Jack McCarthy
A Letter
to C. Hitchens
Carol Norris
This Message
Brought to You by Breast Cancer, Inc.
Joanne Mariner
Just
Say "Not Until We're Married":
Legislating Morality and Understanding HIV/AIDS Prevention
Kathleen Christison
Excuse Me?
How Israel Justifies Killing Palestinians
Linda Heard
Iraq War
Mongering:
A Game of Chess with Lives at Stake
Roger Peacock
Marketing the War on Iraq
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|