It is an irony that peace should be described by metaphors drawn from war. But no other metaphor is so appropriate for the peace lobbies of the world---the marchers on the streets, the human shields in Iraq, the countries supporting peace---see themselves besieged and embattled. They talk in terms of resisting war, defeating jingoism, striking for peace and so on. And they are right---they really are doing what is associated with war: taking fast and aggressive action; doing the utmost they can. War is a matter of life and death; and preventing war too is a matter of life and death. Thus actions to prevent the imminent American attack on Iraq is a kind of battle and the best battle one can fight.
In the international arena the champions of peace have been France, Germany and Russia and China. France has been especially vocal about giving more time to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to do its work in Iraq. This would save Iraq’s hapless citizens from a sudden attack by American missiles and possibly prevent the war from taking place altogether. The ambassador of France in Pakistan, H.E. Yannick Gerard, said on 05 March in Quaid-i-Azam University (in a speech organized by Dr Dushka Sayyad of the History Department) that France wants the rule of law as embodied in the United Nations to prevail in the world. Moreover, France does not want the world to be unipolar; instead, it should have several centres of power. This consistent championship of peace at this juncture of the world’s history is important for us all. What is even more significant is that it should have interesting implications.
For one thing it refutes the Pakistani bazaar version of Huntingtion’s thesis that Western civilization is now at war with (or is having a crusade with) the Islamic world. The fact, as it appears right now, is that the only governments which are defying America so openly are Western ones. For another, it might mean---if these countries are not cowed down---that there can be other centres of international power than the so-called ‘lone superpower’. And why not? After all, both France and Russia have nuclear weapons. The combined economic strength of these three countries is quite formidable. Moreover, if they do manage to create a credible unit of defiance, an alternative pole of power, it will be established that unilateral actions will be resisted --- that the world community has not given up on the idea behind the League of Nations and the United Nation yet! Moreover Russia may secure an entry point in European politics even if it does not become an alternative superpower because of its inherent economic weakness and the reluctance of Europeans to accept it fully as an alternative to the USA.
What is difficult to understand is whether Europe will oppose the United States if there is a war and it does appear now that there probably will? And what is also not clear is what the position of France and others will be after the war? If they do oppose America it is clear that they may not get the oil and reconstruction contracts which Britain, Spain and Eastern Europe will. While this does imply that it could not be out of economic interests that France and others are following the anti-war policy they are right now, it is not clear whether they will not succumb to economic interests after the war. And, in any case, if the U.S does act unilaterally and everybody gives in after the war, would it not mean that American hegemony would be far greater than it is today? In such a situation exactly what will Europe do? Would it still insist on being an alternative centre of power and risk economic damage or join the Americans to get a share of the pie and forget about the United Nations concept?
As globalization makes it possible for the United States to dominate the media, the markets and, of course, militarily it also makes opposition global. In an era of lesser communication it would have been inconceivable to protest against an imminent war as we have witnessed now. And since the protest of millions comes again from Western capitals---London, Paris and even Washington---it would be simplistic to believe in the bazaar version of the alleged ‘Christian’ crusade against ‘Islam’ which we find trumpeted in sections of the Pakistani press. The fact is that since democratic societies make it easy to know many aspects of an issue, citizens can be divided on some crucial issues. In Britain this means that the people---or many of them at least--stand against their government. Whereas in an undemocratic country, like most Muslim states, this will mean that the protesters will get jailed and killed. In Britain this means that the government risks being toppled. However, since nothing succeeds like success, it is possible that if America wins the war and gives oil and reconstruction contracts to Britain the people will recall Tony Blair and vote him back into 10-Downing street again.
While on the subject of the anti-war protests, it should be mentioned that the Muslim world has not shown much pro-peace zeal so far. This is because peace as a concept has not had much advertisement in the Muslim world. It was the Great War with thousands of horrible deaths which created a viable ‘Peace Movement’ in Europe. And again, it was the possibility of being blown to pieces that accelerated the anti-nuclear movements in post-1945 Europe. In America there was no noteworthy peace movement till the body bags began arriving from Vietnam. Of course some nuclear scientists did have qualms of conscience after the catastrophe of Horoshima and Nagasaki but they were very few and far between. The common people knew nothing and said nothing.
The pro-peace lobby thrived because there was a free press, the concept of human rights, the freedom to act according to one’s conscience and less chance of being incarcerated and assassinated than there is in non-democratic Muslim societies. It is because of these freedoms that we have such great pro-peace names as Bertrand Russell and now Noam Chomsky. To believe that such people are not born among the Arabs is racist. They are born---Edward Said for instance---but they do not become great. They die with their thoughts for their thoughts are too dangerous for undemocratic regimes. And it is precisely this killing of dissent; this murder of moral courage; this strangling of conscience which has made the Arabs---and people of other undemocratic lands---so reluctant to champion the cause of peace.
Pro-peace sentiment is less in the Muslim world because the discourse of peace, human rights, anti-war sentiment has never been officially encouraged. And it has not been officially encouraged because the Muslim world has been fighting against Western domination. First, it was European colonialism. Then, it was Israel which kept expanding into Arab territories as the Arabs watched in dismay. Zionist expansionism---even now the construction in settler communities has not stopped---created Arab radicalism. And to talk of peace in a state of siege, in the very theatre of war, is seen either as cowardice or stupidity. Thus the pro-peace discourse has few buyers in Arab lands. It has few buyers in Pakistan either. For here too the Kashmir dispute has militarized the people, especially the religious lobby, and hence strengthened the ‘hawks’ rather than the hapless ‘doves’.
Thus those who protest in peace marches in the Muslim world are not so much pro-peace as anti-America. The liberals might genuinely be pro-peace but then they can muster up to a few hundred people at the most. The Islamists, who are very much in favour of war in principle, come on the streets because they resent the bullying of the United States. They do bring out sizable crowds in Pakistan. And on 28 February thousands of Yemenis protested because the government wanted them to do so. And the government there, like the people, hates U.S. meddling in Arab affairs. Moreover, Muslim protesters, whether Arab or non-Arab, also protest against American support to Israel. This is a permanent grievance of Muslims and the protesters, therefore, are not protesting so much in favour of peace in the abstract as against perceived U.S. bullying and Israeli belligerence. The problem in Muslims countries is that, unlike Yemen where the government wanted to protest through the people, governments do not want to antagonize the U.S. too much. There is no tradition of public protests, there is no civil society to speak of and there are no public leaders (outside the government), so protests cannot just happen out of the blues. In Pakistan, the only organized deeply anti-America lobby is the religious one, and they have protested recently in Karachi. But even they have not been able to gather the kind of enthusiasm which is in evidence in Europe.
Turkey, however, is an exception. The recent decision by the Turkish parliament not to allow the U.S. military to operate from bases in Turkey, is a tremendous blow to America. Is it because the legislators have their pulse on the people’s feelings or is it something else? It is too soon to pass a judgment. But this is the first sign of a Muslim country taking a concrete stop---at least for the time being---against America. Pakistan too will soon be in a position to do something like this in the security council being a non-permanent member of that body along with nine other countries. If Pakistan along with other countries says ‘No’ to war, it might make history. However, the cost of this ‘No’ might just be too much. There is no getting away from this hard fact. But if Pakistan says ‘Yes’, thus weakening the pro-peace coalition, is there any surety that there will be a peace coalition of any kind at all if Pakistan needs to ward off an impending attack? We do not know. There are no easy answers. But in our hearts we know that we must support peace not only for pragmatic reasons, important though they are, but simply because war is inhuman. It is immoral. It might destroy our human civilization. These reasons may not appeal to states but why should we, the people, not take moral stands?
Dr. Tariq Rahman