Stop the War Coalition | ukwatch.net

We Nearly Won

Ellie Keen — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:54:37 +0000

The Extraordinary Achievements of the Anti-War Movement

Justice Not Vengeance Anti-War Briefing 112

BRITAIN NEARLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE WAR

The goal of the British anti-war movement in early 2003 was to stop the British government participating in the invasion of Iraq, hoping that this could delay or derail the US drive to war. We nearly succeeded.

The mass media and the party political system have never and will never acknowledge how close we came. The history books are and will remain silent on this topic, but it is vital for the anti-war movement to remember that it managed to exert such pressure on the British Government that a week before the war, it seriously considered withdrawing from the invasion of Iraq.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BRITISH CONTRIBUTION

Throughout the crisis the US public was very concerned at the prospect of political isolation - polls in the US in June and Aug. 2002 found that while more than half of Americans would approve of military action against Iraq if the US won some allied support, that number shrank to a minority if the United States had to go it alone. (Christian Science Monitor, 17 July 2002; 'Poll: Most Americans Back War Against Iraq', Reuters, 12 Aug. 2002)

In March 2003, 'research from the National Journal showed the importance of the UK in the Bush administration's domestic political calculation: 77 per cent of people said "we absolutely need" to have British support in the event of war in Iraq.' (FT, 14 Mar. 2003, p. 2) In other words, the US anti-war movement, while not strong enough to prevent the war, was strong enough to force Washington to seek international support - particularly from Britain.

THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFUSES

The problem was that the British anti-war movement was so powerful that Tony Blair was forced to spend months seeking a UN Security Council Resolution which he could present as in some way "authorising" the invasion.

In Feb. 2003, a BBC poll found 40 per cent of people would support a war only if there was UN authorization and only 9 per cent would support it without authorization - which is what happened (45 per cent opposed the war whether or not the Security Council approved; BBC press release, 12 Feb 2003, http://tinyurl.com/ynu6rw)

Permanent members of the Security Council threatened to veto any US/UK war resolution, so Tony Blair moved to a fall-back position. He would regard the war as "UN-authorized" if a substantial majority in the Security Council - if 9 out of 15 members - voted in favour of a war resolution.

However, despite enormous pressure, the smaller "middle six" undecided countries - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - refused to support the US/UK Resolution, robbing Tony Blair of his majority and his crucial propaganda device. This was in large part because of the protests from the anti-war movements in these countries.

'In varying degrees,' it was reported at the time, 'all six need money, trade and good will... Other than Pakistan, however, none has a direct stake in the outcome of the Iraq crisis. All have said they disapprove equally of what they see of the U.S. rush to war and the French willingness to allow open- ended U.N. weapons inspections. And each is dependent for its survival on public and political opinion that is overwhelmingly against a vote for war in Iraq.' (Washington Post, 14 March 2003, p. A22)

The US anti-war movement forced Bush to keep Britain on board. The British anti-war movement forced Blair to spend months pleading with small countries at the UN. The global anti-war movement then denied Blair and Bush the political cover they needed at the UN.

THE TURKISH MIRACLE

What worried the British Government even more as it approached the 18 March war vote in the House of Commons was the fact that in Turkey, a country much more dependant financially, militarily and politically on the US than Britain, a similar Parliamentary vote had been lost.

On 1 March 2003, while the biggest demonstration in years was taking place outside Parliament, and MPs were being phoned by their constituents in the debating chamber, a resolution to allow the US to use Turkish territory and airspace to invade Iraq was lost by four votes. (BBC News Online, 1 March 2003, http://tinyurl.com/3yxs9e) The Financial Times suggested that the sheer scale of the grassroots opposition to war 'may have been the deciding factor'. (6 June 2003, p. 19)

The vote meant that the British contribution became militarily significant, much to everyone's surprise. Edward Luttwak, senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC, pointed out that originally, with a light, fast invasion force, Britain would have made up a third of the entire force. Then, for various reasons, the US deployment was enlarged, and 'the British role became smaller and smaller.'

When Turkey refused access to US ground forces, all the US northern invasion force units were 'stuck on the wrong side of the Suez Canal', and British forces in Kuwait, in the south, once more became 'indispensable': 'Sandwiched together, with units under each other's command, Yanks and Brits are more closely integrated than they have been since the Second World War - and that is why a last- minute withdrawal by Mr Blair has become simply unthinkable.' (Sunday Telegraph, 16 March 2003, p. 6)

THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE: DISCONNECTION

It may have been unthinkable for Luttwak, but, the Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Mirror both reported that it wasn't unthinkable in Whitehall. 'By Tuesday [12 March], there were serious worries in the White House that Mr Blair, its staunchest ally, might not survive the political crisis at home. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, tried to explain the problems to Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, in a telephone call which had meant to be devoted to the fine detail of the war plan.

'As we reveal today, Mr Hoon's department [the Ministry of Defence] was frantically preparing contingency plans to "disconnect" British troops entirely from the military invasion of Iraq, demoting their role to subsequent phases of the campaign and peacekeeping.

'Mr Rumsfeld - who had always believed that the "UN route" was the road to perdition - was already deeply exasperated by Mr Blair's insistence that a second resolution was necessary, and the delays that the horse-trading at the UN was causing. Mr Rumsfeld confided to one friend, "I am learning to hate the British."

'However, he decided to give them a way out. Later that day, at a press conference in Washington, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that US troops could go to war without the British if necessary. One Cabinet Minister said, in tones of desperation: "It is just Rumsfeld being Rumsfeld." The British media was encouraged to believe that the US Defence Secretary had been speaking hypothetically.

'The trouble was that he hadn't been doing any such thing. As a senior Number 10 official said: "Rumsfeld was telling the truth." ... In a second call on his secure telephone, Mr Hoon told Mr Rumsfeld in blunt terms that his remarks were causing pandaemonium. "Wobbly Tuesday" was the lowest point of the crisis for Mr Blair.' (Sunday Telegraph, 16 Mar., p. 18; see also Sunday Mirror, 16 March 2003, p. 6)

DELAY AND DISCONNECTION

The global anti-war movements, and the British anti-war movement in particular, brought the war leaders to point where George Bush offered Tony Blair the option of withdrawal: 'I told Tony, I said "rather than lose your government, withdraw from the coalition" - because I felt it was important for him to be the Prime Minister at this point in our relationship.' (Observer, 23 Apr. 2006 ) Blair himself recently confirmed this offer - made days before the 18 March vote. (Times, 17 Nov. 2007 )

'One confidant explained: "Having taken it so far, backing out seemed to him a rather pathetic thing to do."' (Independent, 31 Oct. 2007 )

The delays created by the global antiwar movements nearly derailed the drive to war. It is possible that even a few days' more delay could have given the UN weapons inspectors the time they needed to institute a final and decisive phase of inspections that would have made war politically impossible. (See Milan Rai's Regime Unchanged, Pluto 2003) We know that the British Government was forced to desperately draw up contingency plans only days before war.

These are significant achievements for popular movements with very limited resources. Governments prize the appearance of overwhelming strength and confidence. We now know that this war was avoidable and that the war leaders were not an irresistable force.

Our movement shook the Government to its core. Next time we will win.

Reflections on the March

Ellie Keen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:26:17 +0000

The power of anti-war movements

As I stood by the side of the road in Whitehall, a woman came up and bought a copy of Peace News from me, saying: I'm buying this for sentimental reasons. I used to be a Peace News seller. (In fact, she used to sell Peace News in Charing Cross Road outside Foyles, when the regular seller was off sick.)

I wonder how many of us on the march were also there for sentimental reasons. There were thousands of us to be sure. There was genuine anger over Palestine, many more young people than I was expecting, and some controversy over Iran (George Galloway was heckled over his recent remarks over gay rights in Iran) but otherwise, in my view, are somewhat flat tone to the demonstration.

It is nothing in comparison to the agony of the people of Iraq, but I think it is worth saying that we, that is the anti-war movement, are still traumatised by the invasion of Iraq.

The invasion, in the face of global opposition, was a huge blow to the confidence of what the New York Times called the world's second superpower. It was a huge blow to democracy. (The blow to the stability and security of the people of Iraq hardly needs mentioning.)

What is hidden from us, what is hidden from history, is the story of how we nearly derailed the war.

When we go back and look at what happened in 2002 and 2003, what we see is that the North American anti-war movement was strong enough to force President Bush to need Tony Blair; the British anti-war movement was strong enough to force Tony Blair to need a UN Security Council resolution; and the global anti-war movement - particularly in Mexico and Chile - was strong enough to deny Washington and London the resolution that they could craved.

The invasion was delayed for months. This delay nearly gave the UN weapons inspectors the time they needed to deal with Iraq's weapons issues nonviolently (I wrote about this in my book Regime Unchanged). It gave the anti-war movement in Britain the chance to shake the government to its core. Just days before the invasion, the Ministry of Defence was having to draw up contingency plans for not taking part in the invasion, in case the government lost the vote in the House of Commons on the 18th of March. The Defence Secretary was phoning Donald Rumsfeld to warn him of this dire possibility. Tony Blair was telling his children he might be losing his job.

The British government was no doubt frightened by the precedent in Turkey, where on the first of March the government had lost a vote on a resolution to allow the US to use Turkish land and air corridors for the invasion of Iraq. Democracy worked in Turkey, but unfortunately it didn't work in Britain.

The movement that was successful in Turkey was made up of people like us, those of us standing by the side of the road - and marching in it - in Whitehall yesterday.

(For more on all of this see the latest JNV briefing.)

We Didn't Stop that War...

Ellie Keen — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:10:42 +0000

...but may have stopped the next

Five years ago this week most readers of this newspaper were making plans to go on a demonstration. More surprisingly, just as many Daily Telegraph readers were getting ready for the same event. For most of those who marched against the Iraq war on February 15 2003 it was the first time they had ever demonstrated for or against anything in their lives. It was a protest such as Britain had never seen before, all-embracing in its diversity and imposing in its unity of purpose.

While there are always arguments over the size of demonstrations (the 2 million-or-so figure we claim is supported by considerable polling and photographic evidence), there is no dispute that this was not merely the country’s biggest political protest, but the biggest by a substantial order of magnitude.

Two things are obvious about the demonstration to “stop the war”. First, the millions on the march were right. Not just right on balance, but right on every single aspect of the question. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did turn into a bloodbath, the invasion did not help resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and it did damage the cohesion of our own society and imperil our civil liberties while not making us one whit safer from terrorism. So the people were smarter than the politicians.

Second the demonstration did not stop the war. Our hope had been that mass protest could drive the British government out of its aggressive alliance with Bush and that the latter, isolated internationally as a result, would come under intensified domestic pressure. We came very close, as Donald Rumsfeld made clear. In the wake of February 15, Washington told Blair he could stand down our army if he wanted to.

The prime minister ignored that offer and the people he represents alike. However, failing is not the same thing as making no difference. February 15 has cast a long shadow over British politics since, and contributed to Blair’s departure from office under circumstances – in public odium and with an exasperated party – scarcely of his choosing. What war have we stopped? The next one, perhaps.

The demonstration was the apex of a broader movement which touched almost every part of society in 2003. This included the greatest-ever engagement of British Muslims in active politics, thousands of school student walkouts, peaceful civil disruption in towns across the country, local authorities coming out against the war, and train drivers declining to move munitions for the invasion.

It was a movement entirely outside the established structures which normally mediate the relationship between people and power. It was organised by the Stop the War Coalition (with CND and the Muslim Association of Britain as our partners), a campaign not 18 months old and run on a shoestring.

Hundreds of thousands of trade unionists joined the demonstration, while the TUC – its eyes on its ministerial connections, not its members – maintained a frigid indifference. Labour and Tory party members protested against their leaders, while Liberal Democrats dragged their hierarchy to the demonstration behind them. Marching at the head of the demonstration, I missed what may have been the most telling sight of the day – Piccadilly blocked by people without a single banner among them. This was the march of the unmobilised.

It was also a march against Murdoch and his mendacious press, exploding the myth of his political omnipotence. Rupert said war, the people said no. All Alastair Campbell’s strategy of controlling opinion through appeasing the Sun in vain!

The demonstration, and the movement around it, exploded the notion that society is slumped in a consumer-sodden apathy, and incapable of political engagement. The country’s biggest mass movement followed a general election with the lowest turnout in modern times, and preceded one in which participation was scarcely improved. The problem is the system, not the people.

So perhaps the biggest lesson of February 15 is that it embodied the failure of representative democracy. It highlighted a gap between the electorate and the elected, a gap several hundred thousand lives have slipped down as a result.

The anti-war movement has lived under the shadow of that immense mobilisation too. But it was followed the next month by the biggest demonstration against a war British troops were actually fighting, by the biggest-ever weekday march (against the Bush visit to London later in 2003), by an unprecedented movement of military families against the war, and by a dozen further marches – including one which will mark the fifth anniversary of the war itself, on March 15. Opposition to empire has been put at the heart of politics as never before.

Emily Churchill, a Birmingham school student at the time, described the experience as “trying to steer the course of our country with our own hands”. Of course in 2003 other, American, hands were on the wheel. But the lesson of February 15 is that we can and we will.

Andrew Murray has been chair of the Stop the War Coalition since 2001

In London, the World Gathers Against War

Ellie Keen — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:54:14 +0000

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend a remarkable gathering of the global peace movement in London. The World Against War conference, held December 1-2 in the British capital, brought together over 1200 delegates from almost 30 countries to discuss Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, the threat of an attack against Iran, and much more.

Tony Benn, the octogenarian who served 51 years as a Member of Parliament and remains a stalwart opponent of war and privatization, opened the conference by noting that the venue, the Methodist Central Hall, had been the site of the first meeting of the UN General Assembly more than 60 years ago.

Benn reminded delegates of the stated aims of the original UN gathering, "It pledged to end the scourge of war, to reaffirm commitment to human rights, to establish conditions under which justice could be maintained, and to promote social progress. And that was after 105 million people had died in two world wars."

"With the invasion of Iraq," Benn argued, "that Charter was torn up and thrown into the wastepaper basket by Bush and Blair and others, and we are here to reaffirm those demands on behalf of the human race."

The achievement of that ambitious goal, in the UK as in Canada and elsewhere, faces two related obstacles: the glaring lack of adequate anti-war representation in the arena of electoral politics, and the relative weakness of peace and other social movements in the face of government, media, and military PR juggernauts.

Superficially, Prime Minister Gordon Brown finds himself in a spot similar to that faced by Paul Martin during his short term at the helm in Ottawa. Tony Blair, like Jean Chrétien, clung to power for a decade, leaving his successor to deal with low poll numbers and gathering scandals.

But while the Liberals in Canada steered away at least from official involvement in the Iraq War, Blair and Brown's Labour Party went shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bush administration into the most disastrous imperial war in a generation.

Ten years ago, "New Labour" swept into power, shiny and triumphant. The much-hyped "Third Way" cast aside the remnants within the Labour Party of so-called dogmas like income redistribution and class struggle, and cast itself as modern and forward-looking. In the end, New Labour ended up returning to the old discredited territory - literally and in terms of policy - of the British Empire by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

And so it is that many thousands of members have deserted the Labour Party, and many millions of voters have stayed home and now threaten to take their support elsewhere. Brown, with hands bloodied by war (and without the acting skills of Blair), may now well lose the next election to his Conservative challenger, David Cameron.

This is the grim reality of parliamentary politics in the UK, which does not reflect at all the anti-war majority of British public opinion. (There are notable exceptions, of course. Two sitting MPs, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, the only Respect Party member in Westminster, made powerful presentations to the conference.)

Facing this situation, activists have to think hard about how the movement against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be effective. Demoralization undoubtedly hit people in the UK as it did elsewhere after unprecedented coordinated protests failed to stop the invasion of Iraq in 2003. February 15 of that year in London saw the largest protest in the country's history, with over 1.5 million people on the streets.

Today, there is certainly a feeling of helplessness with the looming threat of an attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, with all the catastrophic results and human suffering that would entail. There is obviously a serious divide amongst the U.S. elite about the advisability of such an attack. Anti-war activists, however, have to find ways to mobilize against such a strike, as depending on the sanity of the U.S. administration would be, well, insane.

The World Against War conference was a unique opportunity to compare notes with other activists, many of whom struggle under extremely adverse conditions. Some of the most inspiring speakers were from the Middle East. Hassan Juma'a Awad, a leader of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, was warmly received as he told of their effort to resist the oil privatization law.

Hamdeen Sabahy, an independent MP and opponent of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, was a revelation. In a special meeting of international delegates, he left his interpreter idle and gave a moving speech in English. Outlining the obstacles facing the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, Sabahy made it clear he felt optimistic at least about the company he was keeping on that weekend in London:

"It is a very ugly world, in many ways, with so much injustice. But here, with all of you, struggling for peace and for justice, it is a beautiful world."

Derrick O'Keefe is the editor of rabble.ca. He attended the London conference as a representative of the Vancouver StopWar Coalition.

Most of the speeches from the World Against War conference can be viewed at the UK Stop the War Coalition's website.

Parlia-ment-al

JamieSW — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:46:26 +0000

...A-TO-B PEACE MARCH BANNED AS UK JUNTA CRACKS DOWN IN SHOW OF SOLIDARITY WITH BURMESE GOVERNMENT

“This is rather a ham-fisted attempt to prevent us from demonstrating. What they (the government and police) do is up to them. We will just ignore them and we have the moral and logical high-ground. I will be marching on Monday 8 October.” – Mark Thomas

Police forbid a march on the centre of government – Rangoon? Nope, London. While Gordon Brown reminds the world of our commitment to human rights and expresses his disgust at the treatment meted out to Burmese protestors, its a different story when it come to the overwrought mother of parliaments.

The previously studiously uncontroversial Stop the War Coalition has run up against the big protest clampdown. Their planned “Troops Out” march on October 8th from Trafalgar square to Parliament has been banned by the Met police. But they’re planning to march anyway.

Usually STWC conducts totally legal demonstrations and has not previously lent its support to illegal direct action. On this occasion they were in negotiation with the police for some weeks beforehand and by cunningly apparently getting round the Public Order and SOCPA legislation by fully complying with it, the march appeared to have the police go ahead. Their marches, which tend to be of the ‘go from a set A to B, hear Tony Benn’ affairs, have been sanctioned and facilitated before by the police – in a marked contrast to heavy handed treatment of unauthorised events such as Sack Parliament (see SchNEWS 564). Pundits used to the Met’s usual attitude to protests were left slack-jawed at the minimal policing in evidence on the massive march in Feb 2003. In fact discussions between the organisers and the police included plans to neutralise anarchist elements, such as samba group Rhythms of Resistance.

However, last Friday in a room at New Scotland Yard, in a meeting with events co-ordinator Inspector Stuart Cornish – claiming to be acting on a “steer from upstairs”, he informed them that the march would not be allowed within one mile of parliament. In return the organisers were offered a static demo – and to their credit they walked out of the meeting.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

To achieve this the cops dusted off the the 1839 Sessional Orders legislation, which allows the granting of orders to allow the free passage of MPs and peers into Parliament. The Act “ORDERED, That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House”. When this act was passed the greatest threat to the state was Chartism, a riotous movement demanding democratic freedom. What next? Public gatherings broken up under the ‘Corn Laws‘? The return of the ducking stool?

The Sessional orders do not actually confer any extra powers on the police, being merely a formal expression of parliament’s wishes. Those wishes being of course being that the people should in no way attempt to interfere with the business of their masters. But it is anticipated that police will make arrests under the usual Do What You’re Told Act if any attempt is made to breach the cordon around parliament.