US President George W Bush and his administration drew a line in the sands of history. This second Gulf War represents a historical turning point, the dimensions of which have not been witnessed since the end of World War II, almost 60 years ago.
Following Hitler’s defeat, an international political system based on the rule of law and collective security sought to avert forever the human tragedy unleashed by Nazism. Having witnessed a Holocaust of unprecedented proportions the world united to say: ”never again”.
The deployment of unilateral force by the US signifies the end of ”international law” and the defeat of ”collective security”. It is an attempt to replace the multilateral system of global governance with the jackboot of military power exercised in the face of world opinion.
Having invented the false notion of an ”axis of evil”, the Bush administration has sought to create an ”axis of occupation”: American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israeli occupation of Palestine. Consequently, the Middle East will become a chequerboard of Western protectorates.
The occupation, like similar endeavours in colonial times, will be dressed in the clothes of democracy. But we all know that the clothes do not maketh the man: democracy means government by the people and must, by definition, emanate from the people. In place of an Iraqi dictatorship, the US will impose a foreign dictatorship on Iraq.
Deep within the bowels of this crisis of the global political system lies a profound and sustained crisis of the global economy, a crisis of global poverty and underdevelopment, and the looming threat of environmental calamity.
It is clear that the prescriptions of neo-liberalism cannot resolve these problems. The Washington consensus of the 1990s cannot provide a solution and even those who proposed it realise this to be the case.
In response, the mask of neo-liberalism has fallen to reveal the true face of neo-imperialism. An imperialism that is distinct from its 20th- and 19th-century forebears in one main respect. In the past Britain, France, Japan, the US and other ”great powers” competed for control of markets and divided the world between themselves. Today only one great power exists and its capacity for domination is subject to no competition from rivals.
Behind the dictatorship imposed on Iraq is a dictatorship imposed on all of us. Even before September 11 it was increasingly clear that the Bush administration was determined to decide on behalf of the world. It refused to accept the International Criminal Court, it rejected the modest attempts of the Kyoto Protocol to a global environmental consensus, it has totally undermined the prospects of the Doha development round of multilateral trade negotiations.
These are deliberate actions to undermine any progress toward a fairer world built on consensus. The consensus is that the questions posed by the global crisis are about democracy, development and peace. Ultimately, these require a redistribution of resources and a reallocation of power relations on a global scale in favour of the poor.
The Bush administration’s unambiguous answer to these questions is dictatorship, war and poverty. This is the response of reaction: a response that is prepared to threaten a global conflagration in the name of greed and power.
These historic developments call on progressive people of all countries, of all religions and of all ideologies to build new alliances, globally and locally, in opposition to war and imperialism. In South Africa the Stop the War campaign aims to do just this: to unite the broadest possible range of South Africans behind the slogans: ”Stop the War” and ”Peace for Development”.
Recent weeks have witnessed a historic unity in action: between the main political parties of the people, the union movement, the religious sector, NGOs and civil society: a unity unprecedented since the demise of the apartheid state.
Of course this does not mean that those who participate agree on everything. The striking fact, one could say, is the extent to which the participating organisations disagree. More than 60 organisations have committed themselves to a ”declaration of South Africans opposed to war”, which says that ”our democracy celebrates the expression of diversity, and none of the participating organisations have agreed to withhold or modify their divergent positions on the many questions facing our country, our continent and the world.”
Numerous actions for peace have been held across the country. While small by comparison with international mobilisation, the marches in South Africa’s main urban centres displayed an unprecedented unity of people opposed to war. Less well reported, but no less significant has been the extensive mobilisation in the smaller towns and rural provinces: marches and pickets have been held in Bloemfontein, Polokwane, Mafikeng, Newcastle, Port Elizabeth, Nelspruit and Kimberly, to name just a few.
On all these occasions the diversity of the anti-war movement was clear for all to see: pacifists, nationalists, socialists, democrats and environmentalists joined hands with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and people of various spiritual persuasions.
All were aware of the diversity among themselves. All were aware of the contradictions that continue to exist between them. And all were aware that Bush and his administration drew a line in the sand.
Michael Sachs is a member of the coordinating committee of the Stop the War campaign. He writes in his personal capacity