The world’s media is full of the ominous news of an impending attack on Iraq by the United States. But the news that as many as four million people had taken to the streets in protest against the possible war in Iraq is truly heartening. There were protests in the United States, in France and in Germany and, most astounding of all, in Israel too on the 15th of February. But in the United States, the adminsitration seems hell bent upon unleashing the dogs of war and not only on Iraq but upon the world for ours is an interlinked little world in this era of globalization.
So insane is the idea of an unprovoked was that I always thought it was a bluff---indeed, despite the mounting evidence, I still cling to that hope. But with so many troops despatched to the Gulf, so much song and dance about regime change in Baghdad, so much arm-twisting of allies by the U.S., it does seem as if President Bush may really plunge the world in a totally unneccesary war.
As for myself, and others who sincerely believe in peace, all wars of aggression are immoral. Wars in self-defense, which are clearly imposed upon one, have to be fought but not to glorify violence; not to celebrate the number of enemy soldiers killed; not to crow jubilantly about ‘victory’. No! only as one removes a cancerous growth by a surgical operation---with precision and efficiency but no sentiment nor romanticism---should a purely defensive operation be undertaken. Such people constitute the peace lobbies all over the world. The first consequence of the threat of war in Iraq is to put life in this peace lobby. As noted in the last few months there have been large rallies all over the world in favour of peace. In the United States too there have been huge anti war rallies which just goes to show that ordinary Americans are not all caught up by the jingoistic war fever of sections of the American media and the U.S. government. In Pakistan too there have been peace rallies but here the middle-of-the-road people, the ordinary people, have stayed away from them. The religious parties, the leftist parties and the urban liberal intelligentsia have taken out small rallies separately. In the rally in Lahore on 18 January, for instance, the leftist parties supported by a small section of Lahore’s liberal intelligentsia led the show. The religious parties were absent In the rallies on 15 February too there were only a few hundred people in the rallies taken out in the different cities of Pakistan. These rallies were taken out by liberals and leftists and the religious right stayed away from them. During the religious parties’ rallies there are few unbearded men and hardly any modern women. Indeed, during the anti-Afghanistan war rallies of September-October 2001, the religious parties were almost entirely alone. The point is that Pakistan’s anti-war lobby is so divided that it is more anti-each other than anti-war even a few weeks before a possible attack on Iraq. The slogans are such that they serve to annoy the opponents and make it impossible for them to unite even to promote peace. For instance the leftists chant “Asia surkh hai’ which was the old Marxist slogan of the nineteen fifties because it means ‘Asia is Red’ i.e. Communist. In the present rallies they did add that it is red because of the blood of the Palestinians and the Iraqis but this gloss does not negate the ideological resonance and symbolic significance of the slogan. This slogan, then, alienates the religious right anti-war people and even the middle-of-the-road liberals. If one goes to a demonstration by the religious parties they call for an Islamic regime, accuse the liberals as agents of the West and frown upon women whose heads are not properly covered. This scares away the liberals and the leftists. That is one reason the anti-war rallies are thin in Pakistan. In the Arab world, with authoritarian regimes in power, rallies can hardly succeed though this time, on 15 February, they were strong in many Arab countries. In short, at this critical juncture of world history, the Muslim world has silenced itself—in relation to the West that is-- because of its own differences, authoritarianism and lack of effective pro-peace strategies.
Now let us came to the pro-war lobbies. It is easy to understand the motivation of Britain and ‘new’ Europe. Both are economically weak and feel that this is their chance of being in America’s good books. After all, once Iraq is destroyed, it will be rebuilt and there will be construction contracts for the winners. Moreover, they would perhaps be pumping out more oil and this would be a great bonus for these powerful economies. France and Germany are under great pressure by their own citizens but even they might eventually be swayed by these consideration though as yet, at least in Germany, there are no signs of change in the anti-war stance. Israel wants Iraq to get a thrashing because it is a powerful and belligerent Arab state. Paradoxically, the only country whose pro-war motivation I find difficult to understand is the U.S.A itself. There are explanations, of course, but they do not make sense. The least plausible is the WMD theory i.e. that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will use them against the U.S.A. One could say that against any country -- Israel, North Korea, China, Russia etc. etc. There are no permanent friends or allies in politics and any country with WMD’s could, in theory, turn against the U.S.A. If this is justification for a massive strike against a country, the United States could justify conquering the whole world to eliminate threat to it self.
The other hypothesis is that America wants to remove Saddam because he is a bloody dictator. Of course Saddam is a monster. But, of course, he was always a monster and it was this monster who was supported by the U.S.A and armed and whose brutalities were ignored. But such monsters have been supported by the U.S.A all over the world. Indeed, America is known for having supplied instruments of torture to them. The list of American stooges who were dictators is so large that one need not even begin counting them. The only differences is that Saddam is a dictator who defies America; the others did not.
The third hypothesis is that America wants the oil reserves of Iraq because its lifestyle needs so much oil that it cannot afford to let anti-America leaders, like Saddam, sit over so much oil. This does make some sense in this gruesome world of ours where human life is cheap and oil is precious. However, there is enough oil in the world to avoid a war and wait till Saddam is toppled or dies. Why waste so many lives and resources on a war?
This is where I feel that the resources which most of us think are wasted are seen as being invested by the war-makers. They want their ammunition to be blown up so that they get arms contracts. They want a testing ground for their macabre tools. They are the merchants of death. They want a good war for the world to tighten up belts and spend even more on defense. So, the oil lobby and the munitions lobby want a war. Add to it the reconstruction lobby and the high command of the armed forces---which has to justify the enormous spending on itself---and one starts understanding who is lobbying for this insane adventure.
That the adventure is insane will become clear after the war. The first consequence will be that the authority of international haw and the United Nations will be destroyed. The rule of the jungle will prevail. The rule for attack will be simple---‘do it if you can get away with it’. Second, there will be a tremendous increase in anti-American sentiment and more terrorist groups will start operating against America, Israel and those who are seen as allies and supporters of both. Third, the street opinion in the Muslim world will see it as a crusade no mater what anyone says. Fourth, there will be increased alienation among Muslim governments and the people if the governments are forced to support America. Fifth, Iran and Pakistan will feel very insecure because the rumour is that they are next in the line. In Pakistan the argument goes: ‘we too have WMDs and we too have anti-American groups. Suppose America decides one day that our weapons too are a threat to them---‘. In short, Pakistan’s relations with the U.S will be greatly strained and that does not augur well for South Asia. In short, the post-Iraq War world will be a nightmarish one and the irony is that American lives will be more insecure in it than they are today.
It is appalling to think of a rain of instruments of fire and death from the skies. It is mind boggling to feel that children who have yet to see the first flush of adolescence will become minced meat in seconds. The twentieth century was the most violent one in history but it seems this century will be worse. In the last century we found ingenious ways to destroy other species and our own species. In this century, with the burning of cities and oil wells, we will also destroy the planet earth. Ours in a species with much ingenuity but no wisdom---for wisdom is the capacity to create happiness. But there is one hope—in earlier centuries nobody raised their voice so openly but now people do. Democracy, free press, human rights etc have given us this gift which is now visible in such large scale protests against war as we see nowadays. Let us not squander away this gift of the most bloody century in human history. Let us raise our voices for wisdom by opposing war in Iraq even if our individual voices are weak. Let us not feel later that we know our planet was being destroyed but we said not a word; thought not a thought; took not a step for peace!