Antiwar rallies to create panic in the policy process

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

It is one of the great ironies of recent history that the militarist policies of the Bush administration, threatening a catastrophic war of aggression against Iraq, have been the main catalyst to a global anti-war movement, unlike anything that has taken place in three decades since the end of the Vietnam War.

Are we about to witness a moment in our history when the action of the people can make a decisive difference?

Large antiwar demonstrations have taken place in most major cities in the world. More than 700 cities and towns were the scenes of simultaneous protests. More than three million protesters joined forces across the globe to deliver a blunt message to the U.S. president that what the U.S. was doing now, was absolutely wrong, extremely irrational and against the collective will of the global community.

The wave of antiwar demonstrations has not ebbed. It is becoming bigger and stronger, demanding the U.S. to immediately call off its war campaign against Iraq.

Street demonstrations are a normal process and are aimed primarily to produce fundamental changes. They are a form of public resistance against policy decisions or a show of unconditional support for a government's decisions. People will continue to resort to this method so long as their aspirations are not heard or the decisions taken by the government lack the clout needed for change.

The current wave of antiwar demonstrations is considered "special", not only because of the massive involvement of people across the globe and because it is the result of well-coordinated global processes, but also because of the variety of components that make up the movement.

However, there are people who judge that the current wave of antiwar protests is one that lacks platforms, and that those who organized these events provided no perspective for a struggle against war. Instead, it was all reduced to the lowest common denominator: "No war". In their view, without a clear conception of the political means required to stop war, whatever antiwar slogan the protesters carry remain a pipe dream.

These critics are suggesting that if a protest is to bring about fundamental changes in policy processes and outcomes, it has to have a political orientation. The absence of any serious political orientation makes it easy for the government to ignore these protests.

Now that the antiwar protests have become part of the public's strategy to prevent a devastating war, the governments of the war coalition are trying very hard to outpace the growing antiwar movement before it becomes an insurmountable obstacle to their plans for war.

A report appeared recently, saying that the U.S. is now urging a second UN resolution that would authorize the use of military forces against Iraq.

It is clear that the unilateral announcement by the U.S. that Iraq was in breach of UN Resolution 1441, and the U.S.'s plan for war, has divided the world into two camps: pro-war and antiwar.

Here, we are witnessing a kind of political game being played out by the protesters and the war coalition governments. Although a clear bargaining process between the two is absent -- because such an undertaking is not a real, nor formal, negotiation process and is not aimed at reaching a formal agreement -- they are indeed interacting through messages they send to each other.

The game is about the distribution of gains and losses. The gains the protesters are likely to achieve, if they succeed in neutralizing the U.S. war track, is perhaps sympathy from those who oppose a war. The antiwar demonstrations -- if they have sufficient stamina and can survive a long period of time -- can also cause fragmentation in the policy formulation process, thus causing the war coalition governments to gradually lose political support from certain parts of the bureaucracy.

This has already happened in Britain, the staunch supporter of the U.S. war plans, where members of the ruling elite have decided to retract their support for the government's Iraqi-U.S. policy. This, in turn, has caused Prime Minister Blair to consider giving the UN inspection team more time to complete their work.

We can see that street rallies, particularly antiwar protests, have the following functions: * to strengthen the diplomatic push against a war of aggression; * to create discord in the policy formulation process; * to raise public awareness that war is against humanity; * to build confidence among the global public that they can be an effective agent and instrument of global change; * to raise grassroots opposition everywhere against any policies they consider inhumane; * to help spread the message of peace throughout the globe.

In order for these demonstrations to succeed, peace must be the accepted and preferred option, and must become ingrained in our culture. Thus, the most effective thing the antiwar protesters can do to spread peace is to help popularize peace; to help make it part of the world's collective consciousness.

The most important question now, is whether the antiwar demonstrations can really stop the war. Some may strongly believe that they can still do so, provided that they maintain their antiwar spirit, consistent with their objectives.

The war can be stopped by a people's movement, just as grassroots democracy was a critical force in stopping the Vietnam War.

As the global antiwar demonstrations continue, it has been reported that on March, 1 there will be an Emergency Convergence at the White House.

On that date, the world will be witness to whether the Bush administration intends to defy the will of the people and go ahead with his war plans.