In a recent videoconference debate between Ken Pollack, a United States analyst and research specialist on Iraq, and South African academics, I posed the following (paraphrased question) to Pollack: ”Given that the peoples of the world have come out in huge numbers to protest against a war in Iraq, is Washington not listening to these legitimate voices from within global civil society, and will a war still take place despite these protests?”
His response (again paraphrased) was the following: ”Yes this war will take place. The people of the world, and their protests against war, don’t really matter in this situation because there is no real direct democracy. It is governments and states that decide whether there will be a war or not.”
So shall we all just go home then, because obviously this war is a fait accompli? The question that such a position inevitably raises is whether global civil society is a factor at all in determining a policy around what must surely be the most crucial issue of our times, a war with the possible use of nuclear weapons, and the eventual death of millions of innocents?
If it is as Pollack seems to argue, a virtually inconsequential agent in determining outcomes around such grave issues, then surely the collective peoples of the world need to re-examine how it is that they allow power to be vested in the hands of those that will one day use it to harm civilians.
It has become commonplace over the past few weeks, for cities around the world to hold rallies and marches protesting against a war in Iraq. It has also become evident that these events are being viewed with disdain by the US government, which seems to treat the rest of the world as if we are children who don’t know any better, and it is that country’s duty as our parents to ”protect us”, by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. Evil as Saddam might be, and however necessary it might be to dethrone him, what gives the American president the right to play with the lives of citizens of other countries?
This is the question that no doubt reverberates around the globe. The irony is that he is not even prepared to listen to Americans who are now, interestingly enough, calling for his impeachment. And so the eternal dilemma of power in the hands of a fanatical leader can just as easily be enough reason to remove George W Bush from the presidency of the US, as it is being used as a reason to argue for the removal of Saddam.
While the US government tries to buy the support of countries whose infrastructure it needs to operate its war from, such as Turkey, or buy the votes of African countries on the United Nations Security Council, who could do with the dollars that would come with supporting the US in its war, we have also seen how American citizens are trying to stop this war because they know that their futures are being seriously compromised.
It is perhaps one of the rudest wake-up calls that Americans have had since September 11, and maybe they will begin to understand en masse why the American government has traditionally been held in contempt by others, and why their citizens have had to pay the price for the actions of their government.
The irony is that, by going to war, the US only makes herself more vulnerable. By engaging in a pre-emptive strike against another nation she sets herself up for more terrorist attacks and various forms of retaliation, not only from Iraq, but from a range of others, be these individuals or groups. And in so doing she puts not only the country’s stability at stake, but the lives of all her citizens, particularly the children.
How can a government justify putting a whole country at risk for a reason that is still unclear to most of us? And even if the reason is removing a dictator like Saddam, is humanity so without legal and political options that it must use the most lethal of means at its disposal? Have the lessons of the past still not been learnt?
Understandably, all peace-loving Americans are also feeling as helpless as the rest of the world. Protests in US cities last weekend showed that really all they can do is protest. But their president turns a deaf ear to them. Who are the rest of us to Bush then, if he is so contemptuous of his own people? Are the legitimate concerns of the citizens of the world only fodder for political rhetoric, which leaders churn out every now and then in order to make the right noises and to try and keep the masses from revolting? And if this is so, should the peoples then forget about engaging in justifiable dissent, a right and practice that is guaranteed by virtually all constitutions around the world?
These are difficult questions. Our only real option is to continue to protest, because if we cease to do so we become co-opted in the most invidious way possible. The sin of silence is no doubt one of the worst. Because it is the very essence of our humanity that we reject when we do not speak out against injustice.
And so Pollack and Bush, I have news for you. The people do matter, because as history has shown, throughout all the major revolutions of the world, tyrants will only be remembered for their heinous deeds, if they are remembered at all. They still have their gods to answer to. The rest of us need to remember the following three words, which will be our saving grace. Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.
Lubna Nadvi lectures on international relations at the University of Durban-Westville