------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Sept. 12, 2002 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
COALITION SETS NATIONAL PROTESTS: STOP THE WAR BEFORE IT STARTS By Greg Butterfield With each passing day, the Bush administration grows more isolated in its plan to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Among the world leaders who have condemned Washington's war plan is Nelson Mandela, the heroic symbol of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. But isolation is not enough to stop a new war, said members of a recent peace delegation to Iraq headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. A powerful people's movement is needed, they declared. At a Sept. 4 news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the delegates joined with anti-war organizations, Muslim and African American community leaders, students and labor activists to announce plans for a National March on Washington to Stop the War on Iraq on Oct. 26. A march will also be held in San Francisco. Organizers are calling on opponents of war and racism to protest in cities around the world that day. October 26 is the first anniversary of the Patriot Act that curtailed civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster. The Oct. 26 March on Washington was initiated by International ANSWER--the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism coalition, the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation and the National Lawyers Guild. "People in the United States and everywhere have an obligation to stop the Bush administration's drive to a new, all-out military aggression against Iraq," said Brian Becker, a member of the Clark delegation and spokesperson for ANSWER. "The Bush administration has no right to wage war against a country that is posing no threat to the U.S. "Disregarding all international law, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Co. are planning to send tens of thousands of young GIs to kill and be killed in another war for oil profits. "The most important point is this," Becker added. "While world public opinion is decidedly against Bush's war drive, it will take a mass people's movement--in the streets, workplaces, communities, campuses and high schools--to stop the coming war. "We call for civilians and soldiers alike to exercise their political rights to speak out against an illegal war." Emergency anti-war actions are also planned for Sept. 14-17 in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and other cities. For more information, visit the Web site www.internationalanswer.org. NELSON MANDELA: 'WE ARE APPALLED' On Sept. 2, former South African President Nelson Mandela denounced U.S. threats against Iraq, saying the White House was "introducing chaos in international affairs, and we condemn that in the strongest terms." Mandela said: "We are really appalled by any country, whether a superpower or a small country, that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries." (CNN.com, Sept. 2) The governments of Germany, France, Russia and China have all publicly opposed the U.S. war plan. Washington's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has not taken a position on the invasion plan, though he agreed with Bush that the Iraqi government must be "replaced." No members of the U.S.-led coalition that carried out the 1991 Gulf War have signed on for Bush's adventure. All fear that a U.S. invasion of Iraq, lacking UN cover or any credible pretext, could ignite a new wave of struggle among the oppressed peoples of the Middle East and popular anti- war movements in the U.S. and Europe, like during the Vietnam War. European leaders soon to face re-election, like Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, are also motivated by simple vote- grabbing arithmetic. Polls in Germany, France and Britain have consistently shown public opposition to a new war at 70 percent or more, and hostility toward any official seen acting as Bush's stooge. Syria and Iran, both longtime opponents of Iraq's government, joined in condemning the Bush plan, knowing they could be next on Washington's hit list. So have pro-U.S. regimes like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. Even Kuwait, the tiny, U.S.-dependent monarchy whose invasion by Iraq was the pretext for the Gulf War, doesn't support the White House plan. WEAPONS INSPECTIONS THE SOLUTION? Many U.S. allies are using the issue of weapons inspections to soften their opposition and not appear too out of step with Washington. Rather than forthrightly defending Iraq's right to sovereignty and self-defense, they are pressuring Baghdad to accept the return of UN weapons inspectors, hoping that this will somehow make Bush's invasion scheme unworkable. Secretary of State Colin Powell has also taken up this position. Powell made his opposition to the Bush invasion scheme public during an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation Sept. 1. Powell said that Bush has to make his justifications clear to Congress and the world. "A debate is needed ... so that everybody can make a judgment about this. "As a first step, let's see what the inspectors find, send them back in." For months Bush and his closest associates have tried to build a case for invading Iraq. Their main ploy was to claim that Iraq was developing "weapons of mass destruction." But some UN weapons inspectors, who toured Iraqi facilities throughout the 1990s, publicly refuted these claims, saying that Iraq did not have such weapons or the capacity to build them. Former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, who headed an inspection team, even admitted that they were little more than spy operations for Washington. Ritter said the inspectors fed information on politically and militarily sensitive sites to the CIA for use in bombing raids, like the 1998 U.S.-British "Desert Fox" operation. Since the U.S. withdrew the inspectors in preparation for that assault, the Iraqi government has understandably refused to let them back in. Grasping for another justification, Cheney gave a belligerent speech Aug. 26 claiming a "pre-emptive strike" was necessary because Iraq might someday develop a nuclear weapon. Cheney said further UN weapons inspections would serve no purpose. On Sept. 2, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said the return of UN inspectors was "still under consideration" and could happen, but only as part of a "comprehensive settlement" that ends U.S.-backed sanctions, which have killed more than 1 million people since 1991, and the return of sovereignty over Iraq's whole territory. "If you want to find a solution, you have to find a solution for all these matters, not only pick up one certain aspect of it. We are ready to find such a solution," Aziz said after meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the World Development Summit in Johannesburg Sept. 3. RULING CLASS INTERESTS The split between Powell and the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld group isn't one of principle. Both serve the interests of U.S. big business and want to see Iraq's independence crushed. Their difference is over the most effective, least costly way to achieve that common goal. Bad press or misgivings by administration insiders won't stop Bush from carrying out his war plans. He serves a much stronger master--the interests of the profit-hungry U.S. ruling class, which is determined to secure its domination over the oil-rich Middle East. And while they fear the consequences of rash U.S. action, none of the other capitalist governments around the world can be counted on to mount a serious resistance to the war drive. Unfortunately, this is also true of the current ruling group in China, the only socialist country on the UN Security Council. These governments are more interested in staying on the empire's good side than in standing up for international law or Iraqi sovereignty. None of them wants to risk being the next target of Pentagon aggression. The United Nations organization cannot be relied on either. Despite the hopes of the many oppressed countries that sit in the General Assembly, the UN has historically served as a cover for U.S. imperialist adventures, from the Korean War to the Gulf War, though the Bush crew would now like to bypass it altogether. The only thing that can prevent a war--the only thing that will give the Bush regime and its corporate masters pause-- is the threat of social upheaval and mass resistance at home and abroad. Fortunately, there is fertile ground for building a mass anti-war movement here: anger over the deepening economic crisis of poor and working people, outrage at attacks on civil rights, growing apprehension at the consequences of Bush's "war time all the time" policy. A Time Magazine/CNN poll released Sept. 1 showed that support for sending U.S. troops to overthrow the Iraqi government had fallen from 73 percent last December to just 51 percent in August. A Los Angeles Times poll found that 64 percent--less than two-thirds--would back a war, even in the current wave of media-sponsored jingoism marking the 9/11 anniversary. Some 49 percent of those polled by Time/CNN agreed that a war in Iraq would be "long and costly." These figures show a much greater skepticism and opposition to war than existed in the early years of the Vietnam War, and they are shifting further away from Bush all the time. Building for Oct. 26 in Washington can be a big step toward forging a movement that can stop the war. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
