|
Peace and Security Cluster, 7 Sept. 2004 Asia-Europe People's Forum.
PEACE MOVEMENTS IN ASIA AND EUROPE: THE WAY AHEAD
by America Vera-Zavala
ATTAC, Sweden
Recently, at the fifth Asian European People's Forum in Ha Noi I got to know
that there will be a meeting between "the movement for global justice" and
the Muslim movement in Beirut soon. I think that is good. It is good to have
exchange between movements; it is good to get more knowledge and more
insights.
The anti-war movement has rolled back since 15 th February, 2003, that seems
to be the case throughout the entire world. Different reasons are
significant for different countries and movements. The reason I see, besides
an organisational concern is that it does not exist a movement to solidarise
with.
During the Vietnam War the slogan in Europe was: Victory to the NLF. It was
not: American troops out of Vietnam , or Occupation forces out of Vietnam ,
it was Victory to the NLF. There were NLF groups formed that worked for
years with all sorts of campaigning. Solidarity movement in Sweden had
something to be against, but also something to solidarise with.
The great difference between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq is that
most of the activists only can be against something and not in favour of
something. It does not exist a movement to solidarise with. Solidarity does
not mean to pity, or to feel sorry for or try to help, solidarity is to
share aims, and to feel that you share aims I think there must be something
more there than just being against an unjust war.
Of course we have to be clear and speak up and out against occupation and we
have to clearly say that the Iraqis have the right to resist and that that
we support resistance against occupation. The US does not have the right to
bomb, to occupy and to decide which government should be running which
country. We have to support resistance in Iraq .
But that does not mean that we support the resisters, and their aim. I think
that one of the big differences between anti-war movements now and then is
that we don't, we don't have an organisation that we support, no national
liberation front, and there is not a common vision or idea in common between
the movement in Sweden and resistance in Iraq .
15 th of February, 2003 in Stockholm was fantastic. There was an enormous
mobilisation, and heavy opinion against the war in Iraq . The demonstration
was bigger than the anti War demonstrations in the 70s. You have to go back
as far as the beginning of the last century, in the morning of the working
class movement and the calls for democracy and the right to vote to find a
mobilisation as big.
The movement vanished quite rapidly after February 15 th. No permanent
solidarity groups were created. Some of us did a day of disobedience actions
against the war and the arms industry that feeds it. It received a lot of
media attention, and support but almost none mobilisation. After that the
demonstrations against occupation have been very small. They have not
managed to attract more than the ordinary amount that shows up at
anti-imperialist demonstrations for Palestine , Venezuela , Cuba.
For me there is an after and before February 15th, as significant for a
radical movement as September 11th, 2001 was for the so called war against
terrorism. Before was the movement, the movement of movements, called
anti-globalisation by its opponents and the movement for global justice by
it supporters.
One mistake we did was that we did not take on the issue of war against
terrorism from the beginning. Anti militarism was not a big issue. That
meant that we were badly prepared for the aftermath of the attacks on the US
economic and political centre. From one day to another that changed. The war
against terrorism, and the aggression against first Afghanistan and then
Iraq , and with the occupation of Iraq changed that. It became our concern
and suddenly the anti-globalisation movement turned into an anti-war
movement.
Why had we not taken on the issue of war and peace before September 11,
2001? It was as if the new wars were not part of our concern. Because of the
characteristics of the war. Most of the "wars" in the world today are not
between countries. They are fought in the borders if old empires, were
globalisation has struck hard, characterised by children soldiers, rape,
violence against women, hired soldiers.
We have to believe in something as well, not only being against. I would
have done it when it came to Vietnam . There was something more than
supporting resistance. It was hope about a better and more just future. I
don't have that hope when it comes to many of the important groups of
resistance today. And I repeat, I think they have all the right to resist.
So what should we do? I do see the urgency of breaking US military hegemony
but I think that fighting globalisation is to fight war and militarism. If
we fight against privatisation, fight to give peoples access to natural
resources, if we claim people's sovereignty and participatory democracy we
can give people hope as well. The movement is obviously not strong enough to
do both at the same time.
I think that the WTO top meeting in Geneva showed that. For the first time
since Seattle the WTO negotiations had a major breakthrough and for the
first time since Seattle the movement was not there to protest. The old left
had a view on politics that there always was a centre, somewhere were
struggle was the most important. The movement changed that. We managed to
fight against many centres at the same time. I don't think the war in Iraq
should let us back into that thinking. War against Iraq is one centre, there
are other ones as well.
|
