THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
Beset by anti-war protestors outside, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bullied and pleaded with America's allies to support military action against Iraq at a Munich summit. Protests scheduled for February 15 across Europe have reached a critical mass of support, with senior politicians asked by interviewers where they will be on the day. In the UK the Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell sought to have the march banned from Hyde Park for fear of damaging the grass.
The underlying weakness of the anti-war movement is that it is not opposed to war, just to independent American action. Most polls show that the opposition to war crumbles when the question is asked 'would you support military action backed by the United Nations'. But it was the United Nations that rubber-stamped the slaughter in the first war against Iraq, leading to tens of thousands killed. Further, United Nations sanctions reduced the country to near starvation, and a medical emergency.
The anti-war movement draws its moral force not from solidarity with the people of Iraq. Rather the case against war that is being made is that it will provoke more terror against western societies. In this, the anti-war movement is drawing much of its strength from the same motivations as the pro-war movement - an entrenched fear of foreigners, particularly Muslims and Arabs. It is pointed that the anti-war movement, despite its considerable support, has failed to fight for the many Muslims who have been detained and prosecuted on dubious grounds.
Finally, the anti-war movement makes American militarism its target, but supports European attempts at great power politics. Instead of being seen as part of the problem, European alternatives aimed at disarming Iraq are seen as a positive contribution. The demand to 'allow the inspectors more time' forgets that it was the weapons inspectors who played a cat-and-mouse game with Iraq, inventing more and more reasons to retain economic sanctions against the regime.
TONY BIN LADEN
In interview with Jeremy Paxman, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced down his critics over the proposed war against Iraq. Intriguingly, the thin-skinned Blair acknowledged that his policy was unpopular, only to insist that his determination was a matter of conscience for him. It would not matter if nobody supported him he said.
Of course, those are similar attitudes to those of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda group, which takes positive succour from its isolation from democratic debate. In both these cases the tactic of deadly action is appropriate to the strategic hostility to the masses.
Nonetheless, Blair's appeal to conscience has some confused. Was this not the same Prime Minister who made a reputation for shaping every facet of policy to the vicissitudes of 'public opinion' expressed in focus-groups? In part Blair's new role as Daniel, bearding the lion's den, is itself a reaction to the reputation he earned previously for bending with the wind. Now he is out to show us that he really is a man of principle, and hang the objections.
The relish Blair takes in unpopularity is an indication that the underlying motivation for both attitudes is the same: the Blair team rose to power by dismantling mechanisms of broader political engagement, defining themselves by their isolation from 'vested interests' - specifically, the organised labour that sponsors his party.
That isolation was the reason that 'New Labour' was so solicitous of so-called public opinion in the first place. But when the focus-groups reported back that the government was too desperate to be popular, Blair warmed to the role of the 'beautiful soul', like a character out of Ibsen, hopelessly at odds with mere mortals, driven by his conscience to act and hang the consequences. Pretty much like Osama bin Laden, in fact.
-- James Heartfield
http://www.heartfield.demon.co.uk/james1.htm