A Global Peace Movement Revival

By Tom Hayden, AlterNet January 19, 2004

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17595

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.