By Harry Targ
Revised from an April 16, 2003 essay
The Peace Movement Said
“No” to the Iraq War in 2003
In the aftermath of the February 15, 2003, massive worldwide mobilization against US war in Iraq, activists aptly borrowed the metaphor of the “two superpowers” from New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler. One superpower was United States imperialism and the other, the power of the people.
While the two-superpower thesis remains
appropriate today, the peace movement needs to develop its content and ground
the contesting powers in their material realities today. First, it needs to
clarify the connections between US capitalism, global conquest, militarism, and
visions of empire. Second, it needs to discern whether individual imperial
superpowers are homogeneous or riddled with factional disagreements that can be
used for its purposes. For example, in the US case, analyses should discover
where multinational corporations and international financiers stand, whether
the oil and/or military industries are driving the doctrine of preemption, and
which, if any, sectors of the ruling class regard unilateralism, globalism, and
militarism as a threat to global trade, production, investment and speculation.
Third, the peace movement must analyze the role and presence of multiple
super-powers in collaboration with each other (or unilaterally in the Russia
case today) who together or singly seek to dominate other nations and peoples.
As to the anti-imperial superpower, the peace
movement should understand it to consist of smaller and poorer nations, masses
of workers all across the face of the globe, and representatives of a large
range of religious, labor, women's, environmental and other groups from civil
society. Most nations are part of the bloc because of the momentous mass
mobilizations of their citizens to say no to war. It was extraordinary to see
poor and vulnerable countries such as Cameroons or Angola, and traditional
subordinates of the United States, Chile and Mexico, reject US pressure to
support the war on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council in 2003.
Most importantly, the second superpower was
represented by what in 2003 was perhaps the largest global protest in human
history. With the launching of the Iraq war in March 2003 the steadfast
opposition grew in size and militancy.
In the United States in 2003 protests occurred
in hundreds of cities and towns; city councils in over 160 cities passed
resolutions against war; and every church denomination but the Southern
Baptists said "no" to war. It is true that when war started the
"rally round the flag" phenomena kicked in: 70 percent of the people
supported President Bush's action. However, just before the war started about
half of the US people supported giving the weapons inspectors more time to do
their job. Furthermore, support for the war was more likely among those who
believed that there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on US targets. Party differences were stark in reference to war:
Republicans supported the Bush war on Iraq about 20 to 30 percent more than
Democrats.
Finally, people were scared. They were scared of terrorism,
of job loss, of economic depression, of devalued pensions. Some worried about
being arrested for conduct defined as criminal by the Patriot Act. In fact, then
(as now) we lived in a culture that promoted fear.
What was done to nourish and expand the movement
for peace and justice during the Iraq War (and what can be done today)? A
consensus emerged in the peace movement in 2003 that over several months,
perhaps years, grassroots organizing-networking across neighborhoods, churches,
union locals, and civic groups-was central. In the US one-third to 40 percent
of the population probably supported war in 2003 and the Bush foreign policy
agenda. Perhaps one-third were inalterably opposed. This left another third
undecided, confused, or marginally supportive of the war on Iraq.
The target of grassroots work was bringing the undecided
people into the peace and justice camp. Perhaps, it was thought, what would
drive them into the antiwar camp would be fiscal crises at state and local
levels, economic stagnation and job loss, the dismantling of the meager health
care system, the continued marginalization of public schools, and crumbling
infrastructure all around nation. People were reminded of the fact that while
economic crisis grows by the days and weeks, the administration increased
defense spending to a record $400 billion in 2004 (and over $800 billion today)
while state and federal taxes on the rich were cut.
On
September 15, 2022, Peace Activists Hit the Streets from DC to San Francisco
Urging Ceasefire in Ukraine
On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a massive invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians responded and their response was fueled by billions of dollars of US and European military equipment and private armies. Thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have died, and millions of Ukrainians have fled the war. The leaders of Russia, the United States, and even Ukraine talk of the possible use of nuclear weapons. Negotiations between competing parties have broken down.
Sectors of the peace
movement in the United States have demanded that all sides participate in
negotiations not war. Pacifists in Ukraine, presumably a small minority, have
urged an end to the fighting and larger numbers of Russians have protested
their country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Protestors on September
15 in the US rallied for all sides to stop sending more arms and fighting and
begin serious negotiations to end the violence. For example, in Milwaukee
“antiwar activists,
including a county supervisor, took their peace flags and "Diplomacy, Not
War" signs to the campus of conservative Marquette University, where they
passed out hundreds of flyers with QR codes for students to email their
Congress members for a ceasefire. Organizer Jim Carpenter, co-chair (with this
author) of the foreign policy team of Progressive Democrats of America, told
skeptics who want a fight to the last Ukrainian, ‘Are you more concerned about
saving lives or saving territory’?" (Marcy Winograd, “Peace Activists
Hit the Streets From DC to San Francisco Urging Ceasefire in Ukraine,” Common
Dreams, September 20, 2022. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/20/peace-activists-hit-streets-dc-san-francisco-urging-ceasefire-ukraine)
In the face of increased probabilities of nuclear war, the
peace movement needs to build a worldwide movement of historic proportions,
comparable or greater than in 2003. The task would be to stop the escalation of
war in the Ukraine and its spread to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This will
take grassroots organizing, building global solidarity, and mobilizing for
peoples' power in the United Nations. This may be our last chance to build a
peaceful and just world.
Particularly, mass mobilization could be animated by the
vision of vibrant international institutions that could represent the
"peoples’” interests. The United Nations, usually a reflection of the
distribution of power in the world, can be made to represent the people of the
world. Particularly, the UN General Assembly, where all nations have only one
vote, can be made viable as it was in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. and the
Soviet Union were competing for the "hearts and minds" of the newly
independent nations.
Also the peace movement should direct its solidarity to the
Group of 77, the movement of non-aligned nations that seeks social and economic
development in a world at peace. During various periods in its history, the
Group of 77 has stood up against the forces of global capitalism. The peace
movement should stand with the Group of 77 today.
In the end, the metaphor of the two superpowers, economic ruling classes, bureaucratic elites, and generals in powerful countries versus their opponents, the people, still make sense. The only hope for humankind is the mobilization of peace movements, the second superpower, to demand an end to war. And for the most part, while displaying solidarity with peace movements everywhere, peace movements in individual countries must target the complicity of their own nations in the making of war.
