Home > A Global Peace Movement Revival
AlterNet January 20, 2004
A Global Peace Movement Revival
By Tom Hayden
MUMBAI, INDIA — Natalia Ablova faces a tough challenge
in her campaign against the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Ablova, who looks like any friendly middle-American in
her plain dress, shoulder-length hair and reading
glasses, is opposing the Iraq occupation on the streets
of Kyrgistan, the only Central Asian country where such
protest is permitted.
"There is no chance for participatory democracy in our
region," she laments. But last year, she led 30 human
rights groups to the U.S. Embassy to denounce the
invasion.
Far from being alone, Natalia Ablova is complicating the
Bush administration’s war planning and its status as the
sole superpower. On this March 20, the first anniversary
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when the White House
expected throngs of cheering Iraqis in the streets,
there will be masses of jeering protestors like Natalia
Ablova around the world instead. Last year, four to five
million people protested in over 600 cities globally.
This year the numbers are unpredictable, but opposition
to the war has increased among the general public,
affecting the American presidential campaign and keeping
the United Nations at a distance.
This week Natalia Ablova is attending a "General
Assembly of the Global Anti-War Movement," one of the
many planning sessions provided space for the tens of
thousands attending the World Social Forum.
Instead of weakening or fragmenting the global justice
movement, the war in Iraq has prompted a peace movement
heavily influenced by the anti-globalization analysis of
the forum.
Bremer and Kissinger
The growing demand is not simply to end the military
intervention in Iraq but the U.S. takeover of the Iraq
economy and its natural resources as well. The protest
is not only against the contracting favoritism shown to
Halliburton and Bechtel, but the very idea that the
Iraqi economy should be contracted out to private
foreign corporations in the first place. Seen this way,
the Iraq occupation is a perfect real-time example of
the Bush administration’s doctrine of right-wing market
fundamentalism that is being offered as an alternative
to religious fundamentalism in the region.
In this context, Paul Bremer is understood not only as
point man for the U.S. government, but as managing
director of Kissinger & Associates, which represents a
secret list of U.S. multinational corporations with
long-term stakes in the region. Bremer already has
imposed a maximum flat tax of only 15 percent on
corporate profits, privatized hundreds of Iraqi
businesses and natural resources, and carried free
market fundamentalism so far that he faces legal
challenges to the U.S. authority based on the
traditional international rules governing occupations.
In addition, a Bremer order dictates that all non-
governmental organizations in the "new Iraq" must be
registered and provide detailed membership lists to the
American authorities in Baghdad.
Except for Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential
candidates have been hesitant to criticize the sweeping
right-wing agenda in Iraq except for "excesses" like
Halliburton’s overcharging on petroleum.
But all that will change if the global peace movement
succeeds in reframing the debate.
A New Movement
The reframing has already begun among countless
activists on the ground. After returning from Iraq last
year, Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange raised concerns
about the U.S. economic designs on Iraqi wealth. Anti-
globalization writer Naomi Klein has published research
in The Nation on the attempted sale of Iraq to corporate
bidders. This week here, the novelist-turned-activist
Arundahti Roy has urged crowds to go home and shut down
the corporate offices of firms profiting from the Iraq
occupation. Such ideas, which were implemented by
effective direct action in San Francisco last year, are
circulating rapidly in the thousands of nooks and
crannies where movements germinate in a kind of "pre-
history" before being recognized in the media.
At a lengthy meeting on the forum grounds today, peace
activists known only to each other through phone calls
and emails met for the first time, shared their
reflections on last year’s February demonstrations and
their plans for March 20. The discussion revealed a high
level of unity and concern for proper messaging, despite
the exceptional diversity of cultures, languages, and
nationalities in the mix.
Iraqi women, for example, urged the international
activists to support the struggles of Baghdad-based NGOs
to protect Iraqi businesses and emerging women’s groups
hard hit by Bremer’s recent agreement to waive existing
civil laws for religious codes concerning marriage and
divorce.
An Indian woman spoke of being "very nervous" about
March 20 because over 80 percent of the 100,000 who
protested last February were Muslim. "What are we
working for, just numbers in the street?" she asked. Or
are we trying to build a "broader, non-religious,
secular movement emphasizing the questions of Iraq’s
natural resources and development?"
The World Social Forum, she said, provides an
opportunity to build a larger anti-Iraq movement across
the deep religious divides of India.
Many speakers impressed the audience with their
resistance in remote and difficult circumstances. A
Turkish woman recounted how 100,000 people marched last
year at just the moment the Parliament was weighing
whether to send troops to Iraq. An individual from
Montreal described how 200,000 people gathered in 20-
below weather for an all-day vigil. A British woman
living in the U.S. client state of Qatar spoke of how
nervous she was taking her first anti-war stand while
the country was "overrun with American soldiers."
An Egyptian peace activist explained the relative
absence of mass demonstrations last year. "All of us in
the Arab countries are under some sort of military rule.
Our governments fear that even a small, permitted peace
demonstration will grow into a larger one against our
miserable life." He is working nonetheless on a social
forum linking peace and democracy.
Less Sloganeering, More Outreach
Several speakers emphasized the need to reach a wider
audience, and to conduct the protests in ways supportive
of the peace movement in the United States. A Costa
Rican delegate stressed that "we must coordinate with
the American movements, not let ourselves be seen as
anti-American, and not be seen as violent." Another from
the Middle East called for "less sloganeering, and more
reaching out."
The few Americans present, mostly from branches of
United for Peace and Justice and ANSWER, welcomed the
international dialogue and support.
An American student reminded the audience that young
people had never before been involved on the scale of
the February 2003 protests. "Don’t say it’s not going to
be as big this time. The thing is, more people in the
U.S. are doubting Bush today than during the protests
before the war. The peace sentiment is growing. March 20
should not be measured just as a mobilization but by the
base-building and education we do on the corporate
takeover of Iraq."
Last year’s large-scale protests were the first in
memory before a war began, revealing a crucial lack of
public consensus as Bush commenced the conflict. With
the occupation bogged down, casualty levels rising, and
the administration’s false claims revealed almost daily,
anti-war sentiment has spread to middle America and
influenced the tone of presidential debate. Organizing a
larger protest is made more difficult in some ways by
the peace movement’s success, but the need to reframe
the message and keep the heat on the presidential
candidates will be a major challenge in 2004.
But if Natalia Ablova is marching to the U.S. Embassy
once again, anything is possible in this unpredictable
movement against war.
Tom Hayden is a progressive activist, author and former
California elected official. He is in Mumbai, India,
covering the World Social Forum for AlterNet.
(c) 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.