| 
| These are regular editorials
produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent
News. |
Return to related issue of Nonviolent
News
The war on Iraq has been and nearly gone (though
the internal ramifications both in Iraq and internationally
will rumble on). Other wars go on, unnoticed. Other oppressive
regimes continue. The USA continues it military hegemony,
assisted in the case of Iraq by Tony Blair and the British
government. So what has changed?
Iraq is potentially better off without Saddam
Hussein, of that there is no doubt. But it is quite clear
that the ‘Coalition’ were lying big time. The
USA was set on war, and regime change, from early on when
it talked only of disarming weapons of mass destruction. It
lied about the purpose of the war, and it lied about its interests.
Oil was a primary interest; to have a friendly regime in place
which would sell oil to the USA was an underlying aim - but
so was to demonstrate that no one messed with the USA since
being the big boy was no use if you could not bully people.
And while ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD)
may turn up in Iraq it is quite clear that it had none ready
for use and the ‘evidence’ the USA and Britain
produced of Iraq’s WMD capability and production was
just blatant lies. And it was a blatant lie that Iraq posed
any threat to the USA or to Britain for that matter. ‘1441’
never justified war; its ‘serious consequences’
did not contain the UN euphemism for war, ‘all necessary
means’.
It would be a great victory for ‘democracy’
in Iraq (not certainly a primary USA aim) if the Shi’ite
majority adopt a militant stand against the USA and restrict
the flow of oil that the USA wants. That would be a sweet
irony for a country, or countries, that could not even wait
a few months for the UN arms inspection teams to complete
their work.
‘Terrorism’ against the West is
certainly more likely than before the Iraq war. The contempt
with which the USA and Britain treated the international community,
the United Nations, and the Islamic world, is a pathetic illustration
of the negative effects of military power. It would seem Tony
Blair had a moral base for his approach but was blinded to
the longer term ramifications. And the real death toll, because
of the chaos caused by the war, is far higher than the five
thousand or so killed by bombs and bullets.
Condescendingly the West now considers the lifting
of sanctions which blighted Iraq since the first Gulf war
and which penalised the Iraqi people for having Saddam Hussein
as their, unelected, leader. How many people died because
of these sanctions? Shall we call it a million? And the USA
and Britain dare to talk of the atrocities committed by the
Saddam Hussein regime. It sounds like the sides are about
even in terms of deaths.
Tony Blair’s approach is to ‘work
with’ the USA and not to try and form an alternative
(e.g. European) power base to balance the power of the US.
It was Tony Blair who got George Bush to advocate a ‘vital’
role for the UN in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq; it
quickly became obvious that the term ‘vital’ was
totally meaningless and meant a walk on, minor supporting
role only, and to the victors the (sp)oils.
Tony Blair is right in advocating the avoidance
of an alternative power centre. But he is wrong in advocating
working with the USA which, as a vastly technologically superior
superpower can call what shots (sic) it wants. We need to
break the military power of the USA. The USA in the 20th century
may have had its hand in more coups in Latin America (of the
right wing sort) than any other country anywhere in the world,
possibly excepting the Soviet Union; to challenge US economic
and strategic interests was to risk its wrath, openly through
military intervention or covertly through its secret service
agencies. Globalisation is its 21st century methodology.
And how do we break US military hegemony? In
many ways. One is to challenge US economic hegemony and consider
carefully what we buy. Another is to oppose US political and
military control and influence, in our case in Europe, through
pressure on our governments and EU institutions. And a third
is to offer support, in whatever way we can, to the progressive
forces and groups within the USA who have a very different
idea of what being ‘American’ should entail.
The USA is a great country and a great people.
It is unfortunate that it has lost its way by becoming a superpower
bully, at the expense of injustice both abroad and at home.
It is country where an estimated 300,000 mentally ill people
are in the prison system. It is a country with an appalling
social security system where the numbers falling through the
threadbare net are rapidly increasing. It is a country which
rejects international institutions (e.g. the International
Criminal Court, or even the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child) which might in any way impinge on its ‘rights’
(e.g. to mistreat Afghanis and others at Guantanamo base on
Cuba) but is the first to cry ‘foul’ (e.g. over
US soldiers captured by the Iraqis) when the boot is on the
other foot. It rejects the minimalism of even the Kyoto treaty
on climate change in favour of more oil consumption (which
is increasing rapidly in the USA and internal production decreases)
and more risk to the world’s biosphere. It cries out
about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ but seeks
to build tactical nuclear weapons which make nuclear war more
likely.
Such crass stupidity and arrogance goes with
the territory of being a superpower. The only way for change
to happen is for the people of the USA as a whole to learn
a different way. And there are many people – in peace,
community, social and political movements in the USA who are
exploring and building that alternative. They need time, a
fair wind behind their backs, support from their friends,
and the growing realisation by US Americans of two things;
firstly, as a very divided society many people are actually
getting a raw deal within their own country, and secondly,
externally, that true security comes not from the barrel of
a gun, a tank, or a Stealth fighter, but from turning enemies
into friends.
The USA can play a great role in the world and
creating a peaceful and just future for all the people of
this small globe. This is something for which we all should
work and pray – the latter in our own secular or religious
ways.
It would be remiss to end this piece without
reference to the grovelling nature of Bertie Ahern and the
Irish government’s response to the Iraq war. At one
point a second UN declaration was ‘essential’;
then that was ignored, and the use of Shannon airport by the
US military continued unhindered (and even helped by Irish
army guarding of planes). And Ahern went so far as to assert
that the attack was not pre-emptive (!) because “the
permanent representatives of both the US, the UK and Australia
[sic] wrote separately to the President of the Security Council
informing him that military action had been taken against
Iraq. All three said the reason was Iraq’s failure to
disarm…..Internationally and legally, it is not considered
to be a pre-emptive strike.” When somebody of the Taoiseach’s
stature twists words in such a way to mean the opposite of
reality, is it any wonder that dishonesty is enshrined in
Irish political culture?
The recent impasse on re-establishing the institutions
of local government in Northern Ireland raises many questions,
among them the goodwill of both the republican and unionist
communities. The postponement of elections to the Northern
Ireland Assembly, until at least the autumn, is a disappointment,
particularly as the normally volatile summer period is nearly
upon us. It is usual to seek to ‘blame’ one side
for such an impasse, and, while there can be some point in
this at times, it can be part of a zero sum game which does
not really benefit anybody when the problem is a collective
one in a sectarian and divided society.
The ‘republican movement’ of Sinn
Féin and the IRA has come a long way in the last couple
of decades, travelling a route which some people thought they
would never even set foot on. There is the final step of putting
its army out of the picture, and the British and Irish governments
have picked at the words of statements on what has really
been committed. The IRA does need to make the final step.
But from a nonviolent point of view, as we have
said before, there is another perspective. We do not see that
simply because it is a state possessing arms – as in
the British or Irish states – that this legitimates
force, the threat or force or the use of force. In other words,
if the IRA possesses arms which they are not going to use,
is this any different to the state holding arms, presuming
the state is also not going to use them? And the state in
Northern Ireland, the British state, certainly did not come
up smelling of roses from the mid-April Stevens (interim)
report on collusion between the ‘security’ forces
and loyalist paramilitaries. Even the ‘Belfast Telegraph’,
which tends to avoid political controversy, had a banner headline
“Army helped loyalist killers”.
But it is a fact that unionists in Northern
Ireland see ‘guns under the table’ as a threat
to them, and an inequality, and for this reason alone in allowing
and assisting the unionist community to emerge from its trenches,
the IRA needs to fully disarm. If it does then there can be
no excuse for any unionists to object to full involvement
by republicans (who have rejected armed struggle) in anything.
It is time for republicans to call the unionist bluff. Without
IRA arms arms, the recalcitrant “no’s” of
the Unionist Party will have little space to manoeuvre without
revealing simple prejudice and bigotry.
But there is another point which we would reiterate.
When the republican movement was involved in armed struggle
it also used what might be considered ‘nonviolent tactics’,
in how it campaigned and protested on various issues. Because
of the alliance with armed struggle it is difficult for those
who believe in nonviolence to see this as purely nonviolent
struggle but it certainly took that form in many ways.
As the republican movement has moved away from
the bullet and adopted the ballot it has unfortunately rejected
also this way of strong campaigning which is, ironically,
a loss. If the republican movement had continued the stronger
campaigning stance aside from the parliamentary wheeler-dealing
of constitutional democracy, it could have been more able
to contribute to a vibrant democracy in Northern Ireland.
And others might have learnt from it.
Democracy is about much more than parliaments
and political parties. It is about how we make all sorts of
decisions, and whether people at a grassroots or campaigning
level have the opportunity to make their feelings felt and
heard and taken into account. Northern Ireland is a fairly
small society, of 1.7 million people, so there should not
be a problem of access to those with power – and the
Stormont institutions did look like they were delivering government
which was more in tune with people’s wishes than the
long years of direct rule from 1972 onwards (or, indeed, the
previous Unionist regime from 1922 which served primarily
one part of one section of the community).
It is, as we say above, time for republicans
to call the unionist bluff and fully disarm. But it is also
time for us all to realise that a healthy society depends
not just on democratic institutions but also on democratic
insurrection (which is where Sinn Féin’s previous
‘nonviolent’ tactics come in). By ‘democratic
insurrection’ we mean a critical approach to those very
institutions (and the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement’s
institutions are fair from ideal) and a willingness and ability
to fight nonviolently for the causes that we believe in, without
being cowed by the corralling of people by political parties.
A populace which is cowed by the trappings
of parliamentary democracy may get to voice its opinions once
every five years or so; a populace which sees power as its
right, privilege and duty will always keep the parliamentarians
on their toes. It is to be hoped that in the future, whenever
institutions return and things settle down again, the people
who are Protestant, Catholic and Everything Else, will feel
free to develop the kind of vibrant democracy where Assembly
members are always on their toes because of organising and
campaigning at a community and grassroots level. That is indeed
a goal worth pursuing.
|
