Subject: debate within the peace movement
As we move toward war, there is increasing discussion
among activists about how to respond when the war begins. Not
surprisingly, rhetorical calls to "shut down America" are beginning
to surface. Following is my contribution to that debate.
I submit the following thoughts as someone who is largely working at the
local level on Iraq but who was involved for many years in the national level
of the Vietnam anti-war movement.
There are several realities that need to be kept in focus as activists think
about what to do in March and beyond. The crucial goal is to maintain
visibility and credibility and to find focuses for action that can have
measurable impact. Activists must struggle to avoid acting out of
frustration or because of how it makes them feel.
1) Until war begins, every effort must be made to broaden and deepen
opposition and to direct it on the real levers of power.
* One immediate focus is the countries that are members of the Security Council
so they understand that whatever the US government does or says to them, there
is considerable sentiment among the American people for peaceful disarmament
through inspections. A simple action is to sign the on line petition that
can be found at http://www.petitiononline.com/sctycncl/petition.html
* A second more grass roots focus is to get every group and institution
imaginable on record as being opposed to this war while they have the political
and psychological space and crisis motivation to do so. An excellent
example can be found in the work with labor unions and city councils, but the
same process can and should happen with student governments, faculty senates,
neighborhood organizations, professional associations, district and state
political party entities, business groups, etc. etc. Statements from law
schools and lawyers should focus on the illegality of invasion and occupation
without explicit UN authorization. Even where resolutions fail to be
adopted, the issue will be joined and allies will be identified.
* A third and closely related focus should be to demand that our
Representatives and Senators "void the blank check" they gave to the
President in October. The October voting list should be widely
circulated. Washington, district and state offices should be under
permanent siege. The message must be that their responsibility is to the
Constitution and to their constituents and that they should demand a vote on,
and then defeat, a declaration of war. Every Senator and Representative
who voted for the October resolution should be under constant reminder of his
or her responsibility for this crisis, with a special focus on prospective
Democratic Party Presidential candidates.
A constant stream of letters, phone calls and, most importantly, delegations of
constituents should be demanding action to prevent war. Activists should
be organizing delegations of ministers, labor leaders, teachers, students,
professionals, Democratic and Republican party activists, community leaders,
businesspeople, and campaign contributors that cannot be brushed off by
district and state offices and that manifest the breadth of opposition in that
district and state. Vigils and leafleting should take place regularly in
front of district and state offices until a satisfactory response is received.
2) When war begins, everything changes. Large sectors of opinion
will be mobilized by the Bush Administration, with the assistance of the mass
media, to rally around the President and "support our boys (and
girls)". The job of the opposition is to position itself as reasonable
dissent that will be turned to for an explanation and leadership if the war
goes badly, and when the costs of long term military occupation and regional
instability become obvious.
* Great care must be taken to acknowledge and sensitively address the
concerns of veterans and other Americans who feel that opposition to war
betrays soldiers in combat.
* Rigorous self-discipline is needed so the war is the issue not the
behavior of an alienated opposition. Our message must be clear,
visible and imaginative, but tactics that seek to increase the social cost of
the war at a time when the media and public opinion are dominated by the first
flush of patriotic commitment play into the hands of the administration and
assist its goal of discrediting and repressing critics.
Civil disobedience or non-violent direct action should not be confused with
civil disorder. Direct action has greatest political impact when it is
understood sympathetically by those who will not take part themselves.
Timing is all important. Direct action must be on behalf of
majoritarian sentiment that finds itself ignored by those in power whose legal
and moral legitimacy is subject to growing doubt. Civil
disobedience and direct action have less impact on events and policy when they
are carried out primarily as an act of moral witness and seen to be resistance
by a radical minority to the public will.
When war begins activists may be most motivated to take their opposition (and
their frustration) to another level, but this is also the moment to be most
conscious of the real (as opposed to wished for) impact on a wider
audience. One of the greatest dangers in the policy of the Bush
Administration and its supporters are that they are substituting their hopes
and ideology for the reality of feelings and beliefs in the middle east.
We should not make the same mistake in our own country.
John McAuliff