Congratulations to Julian Glover and Ewan Macaskill on noticing that “the anti-war movement has a base of support well beyond student groups and the left.” But they should not really have needed an opinion poll to draw attention to one of the central realities in British politics today – that the anti-war movement has now spread to almost all parts of society and is as active and mobilised as ever.
Reflecting on just the meetings I have attended over the last month or so gives some idea of the breadth and militancy of the domestic opposition to British foreign policy, even if much of it flies beneath the Westminster radar.
I spoke at a rally in Forest Gate called by the local Muslim community in the aftermath of the botched police raid there. There was plenty of criticism of the cops, of course, but the loudest cheers were for speakers who linked the harassment British Muslims are facing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I attended a fringe meeting at the annual conference of Unison, Britain’s biggest trade union. Between 300 and 400 delegates turned up – a huge part of the whole conference and the biggest anti-war fringe meeting we have ever held at a union event.
The coalition held a benefit night for Malcolm Kendall-Smith, the brave RAF officer who went to prison for his refusal to serve in the Iraq war on grounds of conscience. A host of celebrities, including David Edgar and Vivienne Westwood, turned up to perform in the beautiful setting of St James’s Church in Piccadilly before a sell-out audience. We raised over £10,000 to help Malcolm with his legal costs.
In Cambridge I shared a platform with Rose Gentle and Sarah Chapman, two women who have lost loved ones in Iraq. The dignity and passion of the members of Military Families Against the War reaches parts of society the rest of us can’t very easily. In Hackney, I spoke to a large crowd at the Day-Mer festival, organised annually by the Turkish and Kurdish communities in north London, strong supporters of the anti-war movement from the outset.
And I spoke – on the same evening, as it happens – at two festivals in London: Islam Expo and Marxism 2006, each attended by thousands of people. Of all these engagements, only the last could really come within the “students and the left” category. It is a sustained national progressive movement without any real precedent.
And all this was before the Israeli attack on the Lebanon, which has brought the concern about British foreign policy to boiling point once more.
Today’s opinion poll shows that the arguments of the anti-war movement now command majority support on every point – backing for the Iraq war and occupation is at record lows, and more people are convinced that the British Army is doing no good in Afghanistan than believe the opposite ( a position the top brass may well share).
And, of course, 63 per cent of people want an end to the uncritical support for George Bush’s wars and a stop to the foreign policy alignment with Washington that reached a nadir of sorts with Blair’s accidentally-overheard offer to be Bush’s deputy assistant secretary of state “just talking” his way around the Middle East on behalf of the President before Condi arrived to do the real business.
Why does Blair carry on with this abasement on behalf of the country he leads? Perhaps there is a parallel with the conduct of Israel itself. As one analyst – Yediot Aharonot journalist Sima Kadmon – is reported as saying today:
“Make no mistake: Condi isn’t coming here to pressure Israel into a ceasefire. She’s coming to check up that we’re not getting this war wrong and not messing up the opportunity to be the long, strong arm of the US, just as Hizbullah is the long arm of Iran.”
As argued here last week, Israel is acting as Washington’s surrogate in the Middle East. This is a war made in the White House. Just as Israel exists as Bush’s “long, strong arm”, Blair seeks to be his supple tongue.
Even in Israel people are staring to wonder whether this “arm of Bush” business is really sensible for them. General Yissi Ben-Ari, a former intelligence officer, has written an article warning that Israel should avoid being drawn by the US into a “honey trap” in which it is used as a proxy to attack Syria and Iran against its own interests.
Blair seems to have no such doubts. He is swimming against a sea-change in British opinion of the greatest significance. The almost reflexive pro-US attitudes which dominated public opinion from right to fairly deep into the left for 50 years are now disappearing. The view that US imperialism (or however you chose to define it) is one of the greatest problems in the world today and no part of the solution in the Middle East and elsewhere is becoming the common sense of our times. Likewise, “liberal interventionism”, the racist and imperialist assumptions of which were well dissected by Simon Jenkins today, is on the rocks.
On this, as on much else, there is a gap between rulers and ruled. The two front-benches cling to the tired cold war consensus that the rest of country is leaving behind. On this, David Cameron’s “modernising” Tories remain stuck in a transatlantic traditionalism, in spite of the widespread yearning among conservatives for a more independent British foreign policy (I have the letters).
Since 2001 the anti-war movement’s strength on the streets and in the conference halls, has been in large measure driven by the fact that it is representing a policy that receives very little mainstream parliamentary support. Blair and Cameron continue to ignore the message at their own peril – if one channel is blocked, a torrent will find another.
Congratulations to Julian Glover and Ewan Macaskill on noticing that “the anti-war movement has a base of support well beyond student groups and the left.” But they should not really have needed an opinion poll to draw attention to one of the central realities in British politics today – that the anti-war movement has now spread to almost all parts of society and is as active and mobilised as ever.
Reflecting on just the meetings I have attended over the last month or so gives some idea of the breadth and militancy of the domestic opposition to British foreign policy, even if much of it flies beneath the Westminster radar.
I spoke at a rally in Forest Gate called by the local Muslim community in the aftermath of the botched police raid there. There was plenty of criticism of the cops, of course, but the loudest cheers were for speakers who linked the harassment British Muslims are facing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I attended a fringe meeting at the annual conference of Unison, Britain’s biggest trade union. Between 300 and 400 delegates turned up – a huge part of the whole conference and the biggest anti-war fringe meeting we have ever held at a union event.
The coalition held a benefit night for Malcolm Kendall-Smith, the brave RAF officer who went to prison for his refusal to serve in the Iraq war on grounds of conscience. A host of celebrities, including David Edgar and Vivienne Westwood, turned up to perform in the beautiful setting of St James’s Church in Piccadilly before a sell-out audience. We raised over £10,000 to help Malcolm with his legal costs.
In Cambridge I shared a platform with Rose Gentle and Sarah Chapman, two women who have lost loved ones in Iraq. The dignity and passion of the members of Military Families Against the War reaches parts of society the rest of us can’t very easily. In Hackney, I spoke to a large crowd at the Day-Mer festival, organised annually by the Turkish and Kurdish communities in north London, strong supporters of the anti-war movement from the outset.
And I spoke – on the same evening, as it happens – at two festivals in London: Islam Expo and Marxism 2006, each attended by thousands of people. Of all these engagements, only the last could really come within the “students and the left” category. It is a sustained national progressive movement without any real precedent.
And all this was before the Israeli attack on the Lebanon, which has brought the concern about British foreign policy to boiling point once more.
Today’s opinion poll shows that the arguments of the anti-war movement now command majority support on every point – backing for the Iraq war and occupation is at record lows, and more people are convinced that the British Army is doing no good in Afghanistan than believe the opposite ( a position the top brass may well share).
And, of course, 63 per cent of people want an end to the uncritical support for George Bush’s wars and a stop to the foreign policy alignment with Washington that reached a nadir of sorts with Blair’s accidentally-overheard offer to be Bush’s deputy assistant secretary of state “just talking” his way around the Middle East on behalf of the President before Condi arrived to do the real business.
Why does Blair carry on with this abasement on behalf of the country he leads? Perhaps there is a parallel with the conduct of Israel itself. As one analyst – Yediot Aharonot journalist Sima Kadmon – is reported as saying today:
“Make no mistake: Condi isn’t coming here to pressure Israel into a ceasefire. She’s coming to check up that we’re not getting this war wrong and not messing up the opportunity to be the long, strong arm of the US, just as Hizbullah is the long arm of Iran.”
As argued here last week, Israel is acting as Washington’s surrogate in the Middle East. This is a war made in the White House. Just as Israel exists as Bush’s “long, strong arm”, Blair seeks to be his supple tongue.
Even in Israel people are staring to wonder whether this “arm of Bush” business is really sensible for them. General Yissi Ben-Ari, a former intelligence officer, has written an article warning that Israel should avoid being drawn by the US into a “honey trap” in which it is used as a proxy to attack Syria and Iran against its own interests.
Blair seems to have no such doubts. He is swimming against a sea-change in British opinion of the greatest significance. The almost reflexive pro-US attitudes which dominated public opinion from right to fairly deep into the left for 50 years are now disappearing. The view that US imperialism (or however you chose to define it) is one of the greatest problems in the world today and no part of the solution in the Middle East and elsewhere is becoming the common sense of our times. Likewise, “liberal interventionism”, the racist and imperialist assumptions of which were well dissected by Simon Jenkins today, is on the rocks.
On this, as on much else, there is a gap between rulers and ruled. The two front-benches cling to the tired cold war consensus that the rest of country is leaving behind. On this, David Cameron’s “modernising” Tories remain stuck in a transatlantic traditionalism, in spite of the widespread yearning among conservatives for a more independent British foreign policy (I have the letters).
Since 2001 the anti-war movement’s strength on the streets and in the conference halls, has been in large measure driven by the fact that it is representing a policy that receives very little mainstream parliamentary support. Blair and Cameron continue to ignore the message at their own peril – if one channel is blocked, a torrent will find another.