Friday, Sep 5, 2008
Antiwar activists debate: Should they take over the streets or work to defeat Bush in 2004?
Mar 27, 2003 | As battle rages in Iraq, despite howls of protest across the world, American antiwar organizers contemplate whether they should focus on stopping this war or the next one. Some activists still believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom can somehow be halted -- or, at least, that they have a duty to keep fighting for that goal -- and that business in America should be disrupted until it is. Others, hearing the murmurs from America's foreign policy elite that Iraq is but the first step in a grander plan to remake the Middle East and the world, are using their energy to lay the groundwork for a broader movement against George Bush's agenda and his reelection.
Right now, much of the movement is regrouping. The huge, centrally organized actions of the past few months are giving way to smaller local demonstrations and vigils -- and protesters on both levels are evaluating their protest strategies. "Most of the antiwar activism in the country right now is being planned at the local level," says Leslie Cagan, co-chair of United for Peace and Justice, one of the country's major antiwar coalitions. "Local organizers need to figure out what tactics and activities they feel are most appropriate. There is discussion both at the national level and locally about where we go next in terms of civil disobedience, mass protest and the ways the movement expresses itself."
The direction organizers choose -- locally and nationally -- appears to be shaped partly by their opinions of past protests, and by their analyses of how the country reached its current crisis. Painted broadly, the different approaches tend to fall into radical and moderate camps, with civil disobedience at the crux of their division. The view held by some proponents of direct action embraces the romantic legacy of the '60s and sees the current war largely as a corporate-sponsored evil that defies the will of the people. For them, immediate action against the war profiteers is the necessary next step. Says the Web site for Direct Action to Stop the War, the San Francisco group that coordinated the last week's acts of massive civil disobedience in the city: "We hold corporations including Bechtel, Citigroup, the Carlyle Group and ChevronTexaco accountable for not only their profits from this war, but the fact that they made this war possible through their investments, operations, weapons, lobbying, political contributions and drive for unending profits regardless of the toll on human life, the environment or society."
Moderate groups like MoveOn.org and the National Council of Churches don't wholly disagree with this analysis, but their emphasis is on long-term goals and expansion. They see the war as resulting from a breakdown in education and democracy, and their aim is to spread the word about the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda through teach-ins, Web sites and church meetings. They also plan a parallel effort to work to elect progressive candidates who they hope will return a measure of accountability to government and start mending international institutions like the U.N.
Radicals want to shock people out of their torpor, moderates to coax them. In all likelihood, neither can do much to stop this war, but their successes or failures could help determine what follows it.
In the next few days, the radicals are most likely to be in the news as frustrated activists turn increasingly to civil disobedience. Such direct action has already caused chaos in San Francisco, where around 2,300 people have been arrested over the past week. Now a loose coalition of activist groups calling themselves the M27 Coalition plans to bring that kind of civil disobedience to New York.
Wednesday afternoon, 16 protesters covered in fake blood lay in the intersection of 5th Avenue and 47th Street, blocking traffic and chanting, "Occupation is a crime, free Iraq and Palestine." But that was likely just a tiny prelude to a wider attempt to disrupt the daily routine in the city. Starting Thursday morning, the M27 Coalition, which includes members of 35 progressive organizations including United For Peace and Justice and the War Resisters League, plans acts of civil disobedience throughout Manhattan modeled after last week's events in San Francisco. The day will begin with a mass "die-in" at Rockefeller Center, coupled with "smaller coordinated actions throughout the city aimed at disrupting 'business as usual,'" according to the group's Web site. Such actions, says Cheree Dillon, one of M27's spokespeople, might include protests at military recruitment offices and the blocking of bridges and subway entrances. She hopes hundreds will participate.
According to Dillon, the aim of the action is to make sure New Yorkers can't ignore what's happening in Iraq. "Our intention isn't to alienate people," she says. "Our intention is to inform people and to make them aware of people that are dying, of the covert actions that are happening in the name of the U.S. government and the war against terrorism."
Dillon says her group wants to stop the war now, regardless of the immediate impact that would have in Iraq, where some in the South have already risen up against Saddam Hussein. "If the war stopped right now, I couldn't say that there wouldn't be consequences," she says. "I just think that war is not the answer, and going back to what is the question: Why are we involved in these events? Is it really to free people or are there other motives involved in this issue by President Bush? How did our oil get under their sand?"
Get Salon in your mailbox!