Commentary:
The People’s Anti-War Movement Must Keep Its Bearings in the Present Situation

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

The People’s Anti-War Movement Must Keep Its Bearings in the Present Situation

Firefighters in Mass Lobby of MPs

As the impending Anglo-American aggression against Iraq looms ever larger and new developments emerge almost on an hourly basis, the people’s anti-war movement is being subjected to a massive pressure of disinformation and illusion mongering aimed at derailing it and making it unable to attain its goals of stopping the imperialist war. This pressure, which is part of the war preparations of the warmongers, is aimed at overcoming, or at least neutralising, the people’s opposition and diverting it into channels which are harmless to their war plans. Central to this offensive are the efforts to cloud the true nature of the impending war, to distort the political and diplomatic developments and to marginalise the central role of the people themselves in blocking the imperialist war plans.

            It has now become clear to millions of people all over the world that the continuous stream of  “justifications” offered by the warmongers for their attack on Iraq are completely baseless. Claims that “Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction”, “Iraq is a threat to world peace”, “Iraq is linked to international terrorist groups”, “the regime of Saddam Hussein is a dictatorship and the Iraqi people must be liberated from it by the Anglo-American imperialist” have all failed to win the people over to the imperialist war plans. Consequently, many people have drawn the conclusion that the Anglo-Americans have a hidden agenda and it is very common in the anti-war movement to hear that the “war is all about oil”.   This, however, is far from a full analysis of the factors which underpin the present.

            In fact, this war is an imperialist war driven by the need of the US to secure its global position as the sole superpower and to prevent the emergence of other imperialist superpowers capable of challenging its global hegemony. In the face of its relative economic decline vis a vis the its main contenders such as the EU, Russia and China, the US has made a strategic decision to use its military superiority over its competitors as the principal means to secure its unipolar New World Order. This strategy is clearly expressed in the Project for the New American Century and the “full spectrum dominance” envisioned in the US Defence Department’s policy statement Joint Vision 2020. It has also been articulated by Colin Powell and George Bush who have both made it clear that this initial attack on Iraq is only the first step in a plan to reshape the entire Gulf region in a way which will enhance US interests. Since the EU in particular and the other big powers rely heavily on the oil reserves of the Gulf, the US plan to bring these reserves under its direct control is aimed at giving the US powerful leverage over its competitors’ future development and blocking their emergence as threats to US world domination.

            This is the context within which the political and diplomatic developments, especially the open rift between France, Germany, Russia and China on the one hand and the Anglo-Americans on the other, need to be viewed.   There are those who put forward the view that the anti-war movement should put its faith in the Franco-German axis to frustrate the aggressive ambitions of Britain and the US, particularly in the stand of France in threatening to veto a second resolution at the UN. However, Jacques Chirac, French president, made clear in an interview on television on March 10 when he declared, in response to a question as to why France opposes a US led aggression on Iraq, “ …we want to live in a multi-polar world, that is to say with several big blocs which enjoy relationships which are as harmonious as possible between them and in which Europe, notably, takes its place.”

            It is clear from this response that the EU strategic aim is to accomplish precisely what the US is opposed to, namely that it should emerge as a big power in its own right with its own bloc, no longer under the domination of the US. No doubt, this same strategic aim drives the other big powers. The planned war on Iraq is part of the growing struggle between the big powers over whether the world will be organised under unipolar US hegemony or whether it will be organised on the basis of contending imperialist blocs. This inter-imperialist rivalry, which led to two world wars in the 20th century, is the real threat to world peace, not the government of Iraq.   The last inter-imperialist war took the lives of over 50 million people. Now, given that in the last 60 years or more, the destructive power of weapons has been greatly increased and that the US in particular has stated its willingness to use nuclear weapons, it is clear that such a war would be a catastrophe for humanity and that the people must do everything in their power to avert it.

            Given the nature of the impending war and the motivations of the big powers in their actions, the people’s anti-war movement must clearly identify what its own role must be in order to avert the catastrophe. The people’s anti-war movement cannot be seen simply as a pressure group whose aim is to “help the rebel Labour MPs bring down Blair and win the Labour Party back”. It cannot base itself on the idea that “the case for war against Iraq has not yet been made” which covers over the imperialist character of the planned aggression and whitewashes the role of British imperialism in it.

            The anti-war movement must forge its own plans in opposition to the plans of the imperialist warmongers and keep the initiative in its own hands, refusing point blank to allow the warmongers to lead the drive for war and the opposition too. It must fight for an anti-war government which is anti-imperialist and which facilitates the passing of decision-making power into the hands of the people themselves.

Media pundits have been commenting how tired and desperate Tony Blair looks these days. Photo shoots and tv footage certainly confirm this.

            We well know that our Prime Minister has been working his socks off trying to convince fellow Security Council members not to use their unreasonable veto, and convince others to side with those that know better than they do (namely, the US and Britain). But his work does not stop there. He has staked everything on getting a second UN resolution to give legitimacy to imperialist aggression, gangsterism and the precious values and way of life that go with this imperative of presenting second rate countries offers they shouldn’t be able to refuse.

            So as the roving ambassador for the United States he has taken it upon himself to bring the rest of the world on-side, while the US humours him but is rapidly losing patience with such niceties as UN resolutions.

            Tony Blair’s work does not stop there. Half his MPs do not support his position, junior ministers keep quiet while how many more are there in the Cabinet that feel it better not to say what the conscience of New Labour, Clare Short, has dared to voice? Meanwhile, he is desperately trying to stem the tide of popular opposition to the use of force to settle any conflict, and particularly that with Iraq. The chauvinism which goes with declaring the Iraqi regime a problem while the Presidents of the US and Britain will liberate the Iraqi people is becoming thoroughly exposed. The whole anti-war movement knows that it is Blair and Bush that have to be dealt with, disarmed and their dictate toppled.

            But unfortunately for Tony Blair, the workings of history are in the end not giving him a choice. He will be left Canute-like demanding that the unreasonable tide of history should stop lapping round his throne.

            The personal tragedy for Tony Blair is that in coming to office in 1997 he thought he had an unbeatable formula. The rule of New Labour would last 1,000 years. The “Third Way” would sweep all before it and usher in the unopposed rule of the rich in the name of fairness and social justice.

            Now the dialetic is closing in on him inexorably. He himself has no options. In the end that the “Third Way” was in reality a programme for fascism and war has revealed itself, and Tony Blair cannot escape this reality. Nor can he escape the fact that the people have never accepted such a programme, and that now they are demanding the alternative and, if not exactly storming the Palace of Westminster, are at least convening opposite its portals while the flags of protest are still fluttering in Parliament Square.

            No wonder the Prime Minister looks so tired and desperate.

Reader from South London