There Is Still Hope
by David McReynolds
If I've had few thoughts to contribute to the host of lists I'm on -
mainly relaying info as it comes in, as opposed to making points of my own -
it is because "everything has been said that needs to be said". To a great
extent we are all convinced. Most of the email I get is a matter of preaching
to the converted. (I do hope people are sending some of this material on to
relatives and friends).
But in the last week several developments lead me to feel there is, possibly,
an advantage to being older. It may give one a certain perspective.
|
For one thing, the situation really is as dangerous as most of us think it
is. Not only is the group around Bush pushing for war against Iraq, but it
has failed, in ways that can prove catastrophic, to deal with North Korea
through direct diplomacy. (While I am deeply opposed to the "nuclearization"
of North Korea and the Korean peninsula, the Bush Administration's record in
this situation has actually, I think, caused the crisis and hope of a
resolution does not lie with North Korea as much as with the US).
There is reason to hope the situation can be turned around. What Bush and his
people have done (with deplorable help from the media) is to sell us on the
idea that war is a done deal. The latest shift by Bush this past week, that
even if Iraq disarms it isn't enough, that Saddam must leave, shows the world
that the issue of disarming Iraq was only a fig leaf, that the real objective
is the power of Washington to dictate regime change at will, and to secure
control over oil resources in the Gulf.
The war is NOT a done deal - though a week from now it may be. It will be
hard at this point for Bush to pull back, but it is still possible. (Nothing
would be more contemptible than to sacrifice Iraqi and American lives simply
because Bush might lose face if he pulled back). Bush could declare that he
has achieved his goals, that he had sought to disarm Saddam of his weapons of
mass destruction, that this is being done, the inspectors are achieving their
goal, and that all of this was achieved because of his resolve. And then pull
back.
It would be seen in the rest of the world as Bush backing down, but many
Americans would accept his explanation. And Bush (and the US) stands to lose
far more if the peace isn't kept.
On the one hand we see an Administration hell bent on having its war, raising
the demands steadily so that Iraq can't meet them, showing a remarkable
willingness not only to distort truth but to lie (we all know by now that
there is no Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and there are no ties between Iraq
and Al Queda). But, on the other hand, lets list the positive developments in
the past month.
The Pope has gone so far as to call for Catholics to fast for peace in Iraq.
He has been clearer on his opposition to this war than on almost any occasion
I can recall. Yesterday the report came that he was sending his personal
representative to Washington in a final appeal to Bush.
The demonstrations around the world on February 15th exceeded anything I can
recall in my 73 years. They were a profound influence on the policies of the
governments of Great Britain (where 121 Labour MP's stunned Blair by voting
in opposition), of Spain (where a leading government official urged Bush to
silence Rumsfeld, of Germany (were the Foreign Minister was so furious at
Rumsfeld at a recent meeting that he broke into English to say no one could
understand the US case for war), to the Arab states where, despite their
dislike of Saddam, they have stood fast against support for the war, of
Turkey, which shocked Washington by blocking deployment of US troops, and
even to the Security Council, where it now seems the US may be unable to
muster a majority of votes for a second resolution or, if it can coerce a
majority, the resolution may be veoted. On top of all this, the AFL-CIO has
come out against the war. Summing these things all up, we have a badly
rattled Administration.
If Bush fails to get a second Security Council resolution it may prove
impossible for Blair to take Great Britain into the war. In that case the
"coalition of the willing" would end up being the US, Eastern Europe, Israel,
and a very shaky Spain and Italy (overwhelming majorities of all of these
countries, except for Israel, sharply oppose the war).
Bush continues to say he will, if necessary, go it alone. And of course, the
rationale for the war has now shifted from charges that Iraq threatens the
peace, to charges that Iraq is run by a tyrant who must be overthrown - and
this shift in rationale has deeply alarmed almost every other nation, because
if there was a shred of reason to support Bush when he was saying Iraq was a
threat to peace, there is profound hesitation in supporting Bush when it
comes to letting Washington decide which national leaders should be displaced
simply because they offend Bush's moral sense. In this situation, the
courageous resignation of a top US diplomat in Greece because of the Bush war
drive suggests something of the tensions within the establishment. Yesterday
came the news that the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, urged
that Bush stick with inspections. The New York Times yesterday had a strong
editorial deploring the haste to go to war.
The rush to war has become a kind of madness. Never I seen a world so intent
on stopping a single nation as it is today on blocking Bush. The old enemies
- Germany and Russia, China and Japan - are united in trying to prevent this
blood bath.
In addition there is the domestic factor of our being in the midst of a
severe recession which hints at turning into a depression. If Bush hadn't
made Iraq the main story, the economic bad news would be the leading item.
It is not only the outrage of his tax bill, which proposes more tax cuts for
the rich, it is the extremely difficult problem of all state governments
which are losing tax revenues because of the recession, and must cut social
programs. What can be cut? Schools? Prisons? Medical care? Hospitals? Fire
and police? Housing?
Bush's loss of support from labor, the hesitation (and in some cases open
opposition) from sectors of the establishment media, such as the New York
Times, all have undercut Bush's ability to push ahead to war.
Two other things have happened, which seem new to me. First, because Bush has
waited so long to begin the war, he has also given time for those opposing
the war to rebut the Bush case. It is almost as if the Vietnam peace movement
was compressed in time and took place prior to the Vietnam War! Thus Bush now
confronts a very strong opposition to the war. Much of this is quite openly
expressed, in signs in shop windows, sometimes subtly (yesterday as I passed
one shop that specialized in art prints I saw it featured in the window two
of Picasso's famous peace doves). The editorial cartoonists have been there
long before the editorial writers, mocking the efforts at national security
(duct tape indeed!) and the war.
Finally, I sense in the flood of email something new - a sense of humor about
Bush. A President who is not only dropping in ratings, but becoming a joke.
In the event that he does go to war it is not likely to result in a sudden
national unity but rather a deepening of the opposition. And, of course,
under the Charter of the United Nations, if Bush leads the US into war, he
will be guilty of a war crime, as will every member of his cabinet.
What can be done in the next ten days to two weeks?
First, obviously, continue to pressure members of Congress. All members of
the House of Representatives face elections in November of next year. A third
of the Senate will be up for election. Personal letters make a difference.
Second, continue letters to the press - they count. Third, where possible,
when the media has been giving distorted views, try to meet with the
newspaper or radio or TV managers. (Yesterday I heard of people going to the
Metropolitan Museum here in New York with paper and pencil to stand in front
of art works from Iraq, drawing them - when asked what they were doing, they
are saying
"these are things Bush will soon destroy forever - we want to make
copies now").
But we need also to escalate our actions. I understand there is a plan for a
demonstration in Washington on March 15th. That is fine, but I think it would
be more important to consider responsible civil disobedience, not
"the day
after" but
"the day before". Not to protest a war that has begun, but to
prevent a war from beginning.
Remembering always that the police are not our enemy, not the target for our
anger, that our protests need to be responsible, peaceful, and compassionate,
they need to take place at military bases, government buildings,
Congressional offices, etc.
There is a wonderful and spontaneous ability of people to act without
central direction. It is over a year before we can go to the ballot and vote
against the political leaders who have been silent or complicit. But we can
"vote with our bodies"
this week and next. Vote early, vote often.
The war is not inevitable.
-
– David McReynolds
New York City
|
