Bridging borders to stop war

Zubeida Mustafa, The Dawn, Asia News Network, Karachi, Pakistan

Today as the world stands poised on the edge of war, a paradoxical phenomenon is emerging -- the worldwide peace movement spawned by the growing thrust towards war. The massive turn-out at the rallies in Washington, London and other European capitals against an American attack on Iraq should leave no one in doubt about the strong pacifist sentiments the world over.

For the first time in contemporary history, people struggling for a common cause are joining hands transnationally to demonstrate their commitment to peace.

The threat of war has galvanized the peace activists into action. Earlier, the risk of impoverishment and deprivation which looms large on the horizon had roused the conscience of thousands who came together in the anti-globalization protests.

The peace movement is following a similar pattern, though it reflects a greater sense of urgency. The extensive reach of the protests has given them strength and visibility which have created a deep impact.

This is the other side of globalization. It has facilitated movement of capital, and, to some extent, people too, and has lowered state barriers. This has allowed the people of different states to interact with one another and rally around common causes. Communication technology has helped by facilitating the exchange of information, trans-border education and mobilization of people.

This may not be the withering away of the state. But it does means some dilution of the concept of national sovereignty as envisaged as a feature of the modern state which had emerged in Europe. The present process is not a redrawing of the political/geographical map of the world. It is a new political trend which is now gathering force and momentum in step with the globalization process itself.

Hence the affinity of the social classes now runs across international boundaries. Workers in Pakistan, America or Europe, have many common interests uniting them against capitalists. Thus globalization which is undermining Third World economies has been challenged in the West as well. The protesters in the industrialized countries fear the loss of jobs if their companies move to the Third World to set up their factories in regions where labor is cheaper and plentiful.

The universalization of English and the spread of intellectual ideas has also led to the jelling of like-minded people into cohesive intellectual groups.

This emerging phenomenon has significant implications for world politics and international relations, and for the domestic politics of different countries. It has made it possible for the people from the "enemy countries" to join hands to form pressure groups for peace. One just has to look around to see how people who would have been on different sides of a political divide now find themselves drawn together sailing in the same boat.

Numerous friendship groups have sprung up in India and Pakistan, the West Bank and Israel, and other places where the people on the opposite sides of the borders have united on a common platform irrespective of their governments' official stance. Their aim is to find the middle ground.

Such moves have the potential of generating pressure in favor of peace and conciliation and against a policy disposition to hostility and belligerence. Although this has not created the required impact on governments' policies one hopes that it will serve as a restraining force. Thus the governments of India, Pakistan and Israel continue to adhere to their policies in spite of what the peace activists have to say.

In the United States, one cannot be certain that the massive rallies against a war on Iraq will deter President George W. Bush from attacking that country. Further, polarization is not between different states/governments; it is between different classes across national boundaries. This could have profound implications for the domestic politics of states while also affecting international relations.

The failure so far of the peace movements to influence their governments is a paradox in a world which sets great store by democratic norms and participatory governance. There are three instances which stand out conspicuously.

In India, the numerous voices of sanity and moderation which have been raised and the strong protests by secular forces against communal killings in Gujarat failed to swing the vote against the BJP and its leaders such as Narendra Modi in the state elections in December. However, the series of state elections due in India later this year would be the true test of the influence of the peace activists on the voting trend in the country.

In the United States, opinion polls have registered a slide in Bush's popularity from 80 percent or so in early 2002 to 52 percent a few weeks ago. And yet in the mid-term elections in November the Republicans won a landslide victory. This is a phenomenon which peace activists should study to determine the factors which prevent the peace mood from translating into votes in the electoral process.

In Israel, where the fledgling peace movement Peace Now has struggled against the injustices of the occupation, Ariel Sharon's hawkish Likud party was swept back into office in the general elections in January.

There is apparently a horizontal polarization The emerging scenario could be a destabilizing one because we could see states pitted against each other while fissures within them could lead to civil strife. All this points to the urgent need to speed up efforts towards creating a peace culture and a climate of tolerance and coexistence.

The scope for doing this is quite considerable. Globalization has been accompanied with high technology communications, such as satellite and cable television and the Internet, facilitating greater interaction between states and their people, even between citizens of "enemy" countries.

Thus the theory of balance of power as it developed in the post-Congress of Vienna European system now appears quite obsolete. The only option for statesmen is to devise a new international system untied to the myth of state sovereignty in the traditional, puritanical sense and seeks to create an equitable equation among states based on tolerance and coexistence.

The protagonists of peace are potentially stronger than their opponents. While those in the peace movement can unite on a minimalist agenda of non-violence, secularism, social justice and humanitarian values, the radicals outside the peace movement stand divided and at loggerheads with one another.

Today's need is for the supporters of the peace movement to prevail over the governments with militant and hard-line policies. It is not enough to catch the media's attention. It is equally important to persuade those in office to change their course.