The People Decide For Peace!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

London Political Forum:
The People Decide For Peace!

In a world situation where the US, partnered by the British government, is stepping up its aggression against Iraq and preparing for all-out war, and where the struggle to make sure that the people’s will for peace on the contrary does prevail, the London Political Forum held its most recent gathering on February 26.

The title of the meeting reflected the experience and stand of the anti-war movement: The People Determine – No to War – We Can Make the Difference. The meeting reflected the fact that it is the peoples of the world who can and must act to prevent the war.

The composition of the meeting also reflected the wide and diverse sections of the people who are taking a stand at this time, and the vigorous atmosphere and the packed Marx House reflected the strength of the movement and the politicisation of the polity which is taking place.

As is customary at the London Political Forum, a panel of some five speakers addressed aspects of the topic, while the contributions from the whole meeting were an indication of the depth and breadth of the sentiments and convictions of the participants in the anti-war movement and the collective consciousness that now is the time to take a stand against war and for peace and social progress.

At the end of the meeting, the London Political Forum elected two delegates to the People’s Assembly for Peace on March 12.

The first panellist was Jim Brann of London CND. In a well-researched presentation, he gave a picture of the build-up to war of US and British troops, and exposed the pretexts given by Bush and Blair to attack Iraq. He pointed out, in a historical survey, how the so-called "right to war" had been curbed in the 19th century and finally abolished in the 20th, having been dealt the final blow after the defeat of Nazi-fascism in the Second World War. The UN Charter and the Nuremberg trials for war crimes established the principles outlawing the use of armed force, of the sovereign equality of nations and so on. However, the US since the end of the Cold War has developed its doctrine of "full spectrum dominance" and since 9/11 had put forward a new "defence strategy" modelled on Prussian militarism, spending $400bn on armaments, nearly half the world’s total. It has acted in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US military command encompasses the whole globe. Tony Blair has cynically cast Britain’s role as the pivotal bridge and the "credible ally" of the US. Jim Brann ended his presentation by saying that the opposition of the US, British and world’s people is shaking them, and posed the issue that it is the people who are the other "superpower" in opposition to US imperialism. The issue is, which "superpower" will win out.

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain spoke of how world public opinion is confronting the US bent on controlling land, sea and space in pursuit of the agenda of the multinationals. Dr Siddiqui discussed how the "terrorist threat" was being used for ulterior political purposes by 10 Downing Street. He pointed out how under colonialism the progress of societies had been halted, and that today we had entered a new era of imperialism. He said that the question is how to confront the drive to war with the broadest possible alliance of the people, in which the collaboration of the left and of Moslems must be strengthened. He explained how certain governments have incited "left" and "right" to destroy each other, often with the backing of the CIA. Together we can confront this monster, he declared. In Britain, Dr Siddiqui said, the Moslem community is coming of age, and this is the time for the communities to end their ghettoisation, especially encouraging the young people to become involved in the anti-war movement.

A speaker from Justice International, Adolfo Olaechea, affirmed that the people of Britain have stood up, and taken up the question of how to stop this country participating in war. It requires regime change in this country, he said. He pointed out that this was not exactly a revolutionary situation, but he said that in the view of his organisation, a constitutional crisis should be created. Troops will go to war by the use of the Royal Prerogative by Tony Blair. That is, Tony Blair is usurping the role of the monarch. The speaker elaborated the "Not In Her Name Campaign", of which Justice International is a sponsor, which calls on the Royal Prerogative to be withdrawn from the Prime Minister.

Robin Smith, of the London District of the New Communist Party, emphasised the importance of this meeting of the London Political Forum in distinction to the discussion taking place at the House of Commons, in which the Labour Party had imposed a three-line whip on its MPs to support the government. There are some leaders, such as Fidel Castro, he said, who understand the peace movement and that the immense majority are against war, that humanity is standing up. The nature of the so-called "war against terrorism", he said, is to protect the dominance of US imperialism with Britain as its junior partner. Who will be next after Iraq? Cuba, Iran? Any country, Robin Smith emphasised, that takes an independent path faces a threat from the US. But the militant opposition of the people is increasing to this dictate. The US is trying to escape from its crisis through war, and the same process is happening in Britain. While the government finds no money to pay the firefighters, it has no difficulty in providing funds to kill the people of Iraq. In addition, the rights of the people are under threat, and under the pretext of the "threat of terrorism" a "creeping fascism" is being introduced. The war, Robin Smith said, is one for finite world resources, and this was the nature of globalisation. Many people are coming into the movement, he said, and the whole movement – "humanity should rise up" as Fidel Castro said – stands against the war and its apologists.

Michael Chant, of the London Region of RCPB(ML), focused on what the publicity for the meeting tonight had highlighted: that the issue presenting itself for discussion and consideration by the anti-war movement is "Who Decides?" and with this the people themselves must be able to determine "No To War". Such sentiments and the actions taken up to embody this view show that we the people can make a difference. The anti-war movement is coming to such a conclusion. Similarly the will of the people could not be more opposed to and at odds with those in power. This was the case especially in the US and in Britain, but equally so for countries such as France and Germany whose governments – while challenging Anglo-American imperialism – were conciliating with the intended aggression on Iraq. Principles which humanity thought had been established with the formation of the United Nations and its founding Charter are currently being overthrown. Anglo-American crimes against the peace, established at the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War, are a precursor for further crimes against humanity. Norms of international behaviour and international law are being flouted by the policies of the US and British governments. It is our duty in Britain – as peace-loving and progressive people – to decide for peace. Tony Blair has once more shifted the grounds of his justifications for the aggression on Iraq from the moral questions onto what he defines as the sanctity of UN Resolution 1441. Whilst many of the excuses for aggression focus on Saddam Hussein, the issue for the anti-war movement in Britain was how to deal with Tony Blair and his government. A declaration from Britain that the people decide for peace will break with all the pretexts and justifications for war. The proposals recently made by the Stop the War Coalition for a Peoples Assembly for Peace is a forward-looking proposal. All of the different views which make up the anti-war movement in Britain represent a clear stand for peace. All are tribunes for peace. That the government does not reflect such views shows the crisis of representative democracy in which Parliament does not represent the people and the Cabinet does not represent the legislature. For all these reasons, Michael Chant said, it was important for the call to be made for an anti-war government which reflects the will of the people. It was important to recognise that the crimes being committed by the British government in the present-day are connected with past crimes committed by British colonialism and imperialism. An anti-war government would ensure that Britain upholds the principles of independence and sovereignty, and it should pay reparations to its colonial victims. These were proactive and positive contributions to the anti-war movement.

Following the panellists, there were innumerable contributions to the discussion. The question was posed that are we just a "protest movement" or are we a movement that has to make the decisions. Old preconceptions were being thrown into the air. Very fundamental rights and values are at stake. It was pointed out that the use of force to settle these matters goes against the very essence of democracy.

One participant suggested that there needs to be something concrete to aim for, for example an anti-war government. Other participants passionately exposed and denounced the US war and crimes against humanity, as well as NATO aggression in general. Others emphasised the necessity for a social revolution in which all help each other in a creative way. Yet others stressed that the crimes of Britain and settling scores with its past must be addressed so that the doctrine of the "white man’s burden" is laid to rest and conciliation with it ended. It was also pointed out that the appeasers of Hitler before the Second World War are the same kind of people who are now actually promoting aggressive war.

The spirit of all the contributions was expressed in the slogan that was raised: "Who Decides? – We Decide!"

The meeting ended amid great excitement and enthusiasm as the two delegates to the People’s Assembly for Peace were nominated, discussed and elected.