Well put.
>The very breadth of the anti-war movement indicates that it cannot be
>wholly a radical movement. On the contrary, a variety of different
>motivations are at play. For the 'anti-war' European governments,
>opposition to a second resolution in no way indicates opposition to
>military domination of the developing world - of which the opposing
>nations, as the supporting, are past masters. Rather their ambition is to
>restrain US imperialism within the Western club. For the growing band of
>middle class critics of the war that pushed the protest into a different
>league, the fear of instability is the overriding emotion. Their pacifism
>is at root a conservative instinct to ward off unwelcome change - the
>popular equivalent of the European leaders' instincts, in fact.
Too much handwringing, James. The important thing is that the public has been jolted out of its complacency about the benign nature of US domination of the world. Whether the left can take advantage of the public's disillusionment is up to the left.
I said something similar in my reply to you on the list a couple of months ago:
Re: The Euro-sceptics From: Carl Remick (carlremick at hotmail.com) Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 11:24:06 EST
>Genuine antiwar campaigners make a terrible mistake when they welcome the
>Euro-sceptics contribution. No doubt European doubts could frustrate the US
>war-drive. But US-European conflict itself is accelerating the
>international conflicts that lead to war. An enhanced European military
>position will lead to more bloodshed, not less.
>
>--
>James Heartfield
Seems to me you're looking a gift horse in the mouth here, James. No doubt Euro leaders have hidden agendas in raising doubts about the US war drive. But the longer there's no fighting *for whatever reason* the more opportunity genuine antiwar activists will have to build public support that can thwart the cynical forces you see at work.
Carl
[end of Jan. 19 post]
_________________________________________________________________