Yesterday a report came out through Montenegro of demonstrations against the war in Serbia, which could not be reported there because of the censorship. These were triggered by the funerals of Yugoslavs killed in Kosovo. This is a body bag type of anti-war protest.
I am writing however because I was disappointed that people have not taken up my question to James Heartfield (under the Foreign Affairs and KLA thread title) of why the anti-war movement in the west is weak. The comments have been instead about the opinion polls which I agree show support but no strong support for the war, but also no strong opposition against.
The question I want to pinpoint is in terms of an actual campaign. There was no shortage on this list of correspondents whom I certainly respect, who were keen to do everything they could to oppose what they saw as an imperialist war.
It is true that in the early stages of the list reaction to the outbreak of war, positions were polarised in an undialectical totally for or against.
But fundamentally I would suggest the anti-war movement has failed because its line was incorrect. It started out assuming that any action by the imperialist powers against genocide in Kosovo was to be opposed. This has divorced serious militant democrats and marxists from what is correct in the main thrust of popular response to what the western governments have done.
It has left the agenda in the hands of the imperialist governments instead of challenging it. This is the worst failing.
A correct line would have started out clearly against national oppression of a subject people and then emphasised the need to oppose the implementation of this in disproportionate and imperialist ways.
Yes, we are coming down to subtleties of emphasis, but fundamentally I would challenge good people by suggesting that the weakness of the anti-war movement is because its basic line has been wrong.
Comments? Refutations?
Chris Burford
London