Bush Protests: An Appraisal

by Plover Sun Jun 27, 2004 18:51

Good analysis by Dominic Carroll. I agree that the next few months will be tough for antiwar work. We need some unity between the different groups.

by confused Sun Jun 27, 2004 20:33

Never mind the puppet government in Baghdad ......
What about the puppet government in Dublin ?
What are ye going to do about that ?

by Jeff O'M Sun Jun 27, 2004 20:36

The IAWM has a lot to answer for. The notice for the Shannon demo was repeatedly deleted (censored, if you like) from the IAWM website. When the Shannon residents got interested so did the IAWM, but still the demo notice was deleted every time it went up. And then the Shannon residents marched with Anti-War Ireland. Ouch! I bet that hurt, Kieran. We dont expect anything better from Allen, Barrett and the SWP, but what do PANA, NGO Peace Alliance and the Green Party have to say about this skulldegery? Time for some soul-searching in acceptable wing of the IAWM.

by Anon Sun Jun 27, 2004 21:15

It wasn't just the Shannon demo that was repeatedly deleted from the IAWM website - they also repeatedly deleted notices for the overnight peace vigil at the US embassy by Deirdre Clancy and Fintan Lane, both members of Anti-War Ireland. Now that's SERIOUS sectarianism!

by Eagle Eye Sun Jun 27, 2004 21:23

Looks like Antiwar Ireland was about spot on about numbers and the IAWM was way off. Boyd Barrett seems to reside in cloud cuckoo land. Where were the 1 million Richard? Resign. What you said about regional demos wasnt quite right though Dominic. Galway seems to have been big. But as you said regional demos were generally small and Dublin was exactly as you predicted: 15,000. Shannon was probably 1,200 which is not too far off your predicted 2,000. Good work Anti-war Ireland. Think again IAWM.

Dominic Carrol on Indymedia in May
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65000

Richard Boyd Barrett (Chairperson of the IAWM) was quoted in the Irish Examiner as saying that he expects a million people – yes, 1,000,000 – to protest against Bush.
I would argue that the IAWM anticipated turn-out for Dublin is highly unrealistic and brings into question the judgement of those leading the IAWM … the real picture is likely to be as follows: IAWM demo in Dublin: 15,000; AWI demo in Shannon: 2,000; Regional demos: negligible. These figures are based on what I consider to be a true estimation of the willingness to protest when Bush comes. Regardless of the obvious and widespread opposition to Bush and the war in Iraq, it’s nothing short of fantasy to imagine that a million people will protest. This, I believe, is called setting yourself up for a fall and, as I stated above, poses serious questions about the IAWM’s leadership, not to mention its credibility.

by Mark Feehily Sun Jun 27, 2004 22:59

Nobody was interested in giving a message to this war criminal except our core people.

Everybody else just shrugged.

by Jed Kellerman Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:46

Well done to the Irish. For once, we in America had something to cheer about. You showed Bush in no uncertain terms how unwelcome he was. I agree with the first posting here. We're in the same position - thinking about where we go next. Keep up the good work.

by Jonah Mon Jun 28, 2004 13:05

I think we need to be very careful about chucking about figures for demos.

Boyd Barrett in particular has a tendency to predict massive figures that end up looking disappointing, but he's hardly unique in the Left.

Constant references to the size of the February 15th demo are also self-defeating. The likelihood is nothing in this generation of political activism will match that. Using it, or allowing the media to use it, as a benchmark is also self-defeating.

Personally I was pleasantly surprised at the size of the Dublin demo and the rest were as I expected. But people predicted 'tens of thousands' would march in Shannon. This was never going to happen and making such predictions is extremely foolish.

Anyway, negativity aside, I think the events as a whole were successful. The split in the protests struck me, as some-one neither in the IAWM or Anti-War Ireland as absolutely ridiculous. While I understand the anger a number of people felt about the way the IAWM conducts itself internally, the lack of co-ordination and co-operation is just bizarre.

by The Whale Mon Jun 28, 2004 13:29

"The split in the protests struck me, as some-one neither in the IAWM or Anti-War Ireland as absolutely ridiculous. While I understand the anger a number of people felt about the way the IAWM conducts itself internally, the lack of co-ordination and co-operation is just bizarre."

Most of this is fair comment but why infer that one group is more to blame than the other. The group refusing co-ordination and co-operation is the IAWM. Who censored messages to their message board? The lesson - You don't mess with a SWP brand name.

by Smash the fucking system Mon Jun 28, 2004 14:45

You simply have to rip it to pieces.

GW Bush is simply one figurehead, puppet.
Don`t forget when the elections are over
in US that they will simply put another
figurehead in his place - probably Kerry.

And the same shit will continue.

The bullshit were are being feed is
accelerating in pace.

Nobodys mentioning anything about
the blood sucking Queen.
She`s a bloody vampire! And she doesn`t
even pretend to be shy about that- or is it
because british(not irish) are too
patriotic about having this reptilian,
disgusting old maaam playing deadly
games in their backyard.

Remember Diana.

Fuck NWO
Fuck the Illuminati.
Fuck the EU
Fuck Blair
Fuck the Queen
Fuck all of em

... and as we speak they are gathering
navies worldwide in an attempt to blockade
countries like North Korea and Iran and cause still more suffering for civilians there....

by Roger Cole - PANA Mon Jun 28, 2004 15:04 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

PANA was established in 1996. It has been campaigning for an independent Irish Foreign policy, Irish neutrality and a reformed United Nations since then. It has been therefore opposed to the intergration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial structures long before the NGOPA, the IAWM or AWI came into existence.
PANA is not, nor does it claim to be anything other than a small part of a broader anti-war movement.
It seeks to have a dialogue with all those opposed to the intergration of this state into the EU/US imperial nexus.

by Badman Mon Jun 28, 2004 15:14

For all of its campaigns and affiliates, it seems to do little more than lobby establishment political parties and politicians and provide a media platform for Roger Cole. It is apparently a one-man vehicle as Roger is the only person who ever speaks on its behalf. It has no real democracy as none of the membership are consulted before Roger issues statements on their behalf. It has zero history of mobilising people. It's most significant contribution to the current anti-war movement has been to get Roger's face in the media so that he can attack anti-war groups who are actually doing something (cf March 1st last year). Its credibility is very low, following Roger's abject failure to get elected to a council seat in Dun Laoghaoire at the recent elections.

by Jim Monaghan Mon Jun 28, 2004 16:08 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

There is room for a variety of responses to the war. There is room for dialogue about the way forward.
PANA is the sum of its members and affiliates. Pay the nominal fee and you are free to attend the annual conference and elect the leadership if you want. It cooperates with other groups where there is agreement. It is open to dialogue with all the groups that oppose the war and where there is agreement I am sure there can be cooperation.
I am glad that the over reaction of the Gardai and their masters was proved wrong by the peaceful nature of the demos. Congrats top all whatever their organisation.
Roger has never hidden his politics or his name. His platform in Dun Laoghaire was open and the votes were got honestly and squarely.

by Badman Mon Jun 28, 2004 16:45

For all your preaching about co-operation and dialogue, you still fall headfirst into the bogus logic that the powerful have manufactured. If you want to get a clue, you should come down from your ivory tower and find out for yourself what actually happened.

QUOTE: "I am glad that the over reaction of the Gardai and their masters was proved wrong by the peaceful nature of the demos"

This is just wrong. The nature of the demos was, if anything, less obedient than usual. The Ambush march took about 700 people through police barricades and later a group of about 100 people broke away and went through at least 6 lines of riot cops. The police used 2 APC's to drive this breakaway back (very ineffectively).

The police, state and media decided for their own reasons that the demonstrations would pass 'without incident' They literally refused to arrest anybody on any of the demos, despite an approach by protestors that would in most circumstances have led to dozens of arrests. The nature of the demos was much as they always are, just slightly more confrontational. If the state had wanted to, there was more than enough information with which to condemn the 'violent' bad protestors for our irresponsible actions.

The media depiction of unusually peaceful protests bears no relation to what the protestors actually did. In other political circumstances we would have all been portrayed as violent lunatics for doing exactly the same and yourself and some of the other leftist intellectuals would probably be lecturing us for our irresponsibility.

Regarding PANA, just because anybody can join it and change it doesn't mean anything. Anybody can join and try to change Fianna Fail and it's still an undemocratic bunch of gangsters; similarly PANA is a paper tiger which currently serves merely to advance the career of Roger Cole. If you want to argue against this, please let me know what PANA has actually done that contradicts this.

by PK Mon Jun 28, 2004 20:13

The reality is that Anti-War Ireland was really up against it while organising the Shannon demo that met Bush as he landed.

You would think it was an obvious demo to have, but the SWP front, the IAWM, did everything it could to undermine it. The Galway demo was great but was it really worth having the demos in Tralee and Sligo instead of those people bolstering the numbers at Shannon? And don’t forget that the SWP actually tried to convince people in Limerick and Cork to organise clashing Friday night demos even though both the Cork Anti-War Campaign and the Mid-West Alliance Against Military Aggression were mobilising for the Anti-War Ireland demo at Shannon!!!

But one of the most unhelpful people in the whole saga must have been Dominic Haugh of Shannon who showed unbelievable timidity and a complete lack of nerve. His behaviour was very odd when one considers that the Socialist Party (of which he’s a member) fully supported the Anti-War Ireland demo and turned out on the day. He kept insisting that the AWI march was unlikely to be allowed. What’s up with Haugh? And in case you think I’m kidding, check out the following excerpts from an article published in the Clare Champion on Friday, 25th June. Bear in mind that the IAWM and SWP promoted this ‘separation’ of protests, advertising it on their website while deleting notices for the Anti-War Ireland march. On the night, of course, everybody mucked in together and the residents happily joined the Anti-War Ireland demo. And why wouldn’t they?

“SHANNON RESIDENTS TO HOLD OWN PROTEST

A Shannon-based group, opposed to the visit of George Bush to Shannon will protest against the visit of the US leader at 7pm on Friday June 25. The protest will assemble in the town centre carpark opposite Xtra-vision.

However, the group have sought to distance themselves from other demonstrations due to be held in the town and at Dromoland on Friday and Saturday.

“There may be other groups protesting in Shannon on Friday evening but we would encourage the people of Shannon to participate in the protest being organised by residents. This protest will be separate and distinct from any other that may be taking place. We have found this necessary as a result of the lack of co-operation we have received from the other groups wishing to protest,” spokesperson Dominic Haugh pointed out.

At the public meeting an organising committee was established. Subsequently the group decided not to affiliate to any of the national anti-war groups or to participate in any of the proposed protests in Shannon on Friday evening in recognition of the fact that many Shannon residents were unhappy with the way these protests were organised in the past. According to the committee the protest by Shannon residents will be a peaceful protest organised and stewarded by residents of Shannon. Discussions have been held with the Gardai in order to ensure the safety and security of those wishing to protest. The Gardai have acknowledged the right of residents of Shannon to assemble and protest against the visit of George Bush.”

Now here’s a few questions:

1. What ‘lack of co-operation’ from other groups, and why PUBLICLY disown the AWI protest?
2. Other protests ‘may’ take place?
3. What’s this about the way protests ‘were organised in the past’?
4. Is it a socialist’s job to promote this sort of division as if it’s a worthy thing? Should Haugh have put himself out front to promote a public division? Shouldn't he have been arguing aginst it?

Haugh seems to be an advocate of ‘socialism in one town’. He seems to have put no effort into defending the rights of non-Shannon anti-war protesters and instead spent most of his time cuddling up to the guards and almost acting as their representative. Is this the behaviour of a clued-in socialist? Don’t think so. Maybe he’s just in the wrong political party.

by AJ Mon Jun 28, 2004 20:31

Saw ye all on the american news last night, obviously not a lot was shown but enough to get the message accross that the big eejit (GWB) was not welcome. If i had been home would have been there , made me proud!

by Jim Monaghan Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:29

"100 people broke away and went through at least 6 lines of riot cops. The police used 2 APC's to drive this breakaway back (very ineffectively). "

This is where there is a real disagreement. I was on the embassy march during the H-Block days and there there was a real riot. To pretend that a 100 people who whoever brave are going to do something real is a fairytale. Better 10,000 on a march than trying to pretend that a small number of people doing something "more" militant is better. This is the politics of elitism where the mass of the people have a role only as spectators.
Do you seriously think that if push came to shove that the cops would not have dealt with the 100 a lot harder.The only protection dissidents have is at least the passive support of a largish minority. If they get isolated they will end up both ineffective and can be easily dealt with.Tyhe fact that the Greens, Labour Party and Sinn Fein support the demos because their rank and file does allows the whole movement to flourish.
Come out from behind your pseudonym I promise not to bite.( I am a peaceful protestor)

by Ray Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:02

There were three demonstrations around Shannon town last weekend, all of approximately the same size.* On two of those demonstrations people marched down a road fenced off for its entire length, under the eyes of police at all times, until they arrived at a dead end. Then they stood around for a while and listened to speeches. If this was the first demonstration you were ever on it might be okay. For everyone else it was not just boring, but actively demoralising.

On Saturday's AmBush demo, there was no negotiation with the police, and the march took a route the gardai weren't expecting. The atmosphere on the march was much better because people felt they weren't being herded into a pen - on the contrary people pushed through a police cordon without even pausing. The march was eventually stopped by a double line of police across the motorway, but even this was a victory, because it meant the journalists going to the press conference were delayed. The AmBush march was thus the only one to have a direct impact on Bush. (and RBB can stop trying to claim it)

On the way back down the road, we cut across some waste ground, and into an industrial estate, catching the police on the hop, surrounding two APCs, and making the riot cops look like idiots. Will this stop the war? No. Will it raise the morale of all the protesters involved, making them more likely to come out again, and bring their friends with them? Fuck yeah.

Yes, its important to get numbers out. Yes, its important to have a safe environment for families and kids (and they were there on the AmBush march). But if you think a demonstration is about marching people up and down O'Connell Street and lecturing them about why they're there, don't be surprised if that's the last you see of them. If you give people a chance to get involved, to feel that they're having a real impact, to do something fun... then maybe they'll be the ones that organise the next demo.

* and lots of other actions around the place, some good, some better

by pseudonymed up boy Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:13

"Better 10,000 on a march than trying to pretend that a small number of people doing something "more" militant is better. This is the politics of elitism where the mass of the people have a role only as spectators."

Do you really believe this? The numbers game doesn't add up. Last year we had the largest march of roughly 120,000 and a couple of other big marchs. What did they acheive? Well besides from FF coming out and saying that they were really on the side of the marchers - fuck all really. Nice day and all that but it didn't acheive much. There seems to be a misunderstanding going on here. People involved with GG are not saying that they don't think that large marchs are useful, of course they are, they gauge the mood. But once gauged there is a need to inject some militancy. The disarming of planes and even upsetting Bush's press confernence do have an impact. You shouting elitism doesn't help - how about encouraging the mass of people to take things forward. What's wrong - not up to it anymore?

by Eagle Eye Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:32

I’m reminded of my time in the unemployed action groups during the dark days of the 80s. There was one action when we really made the cops look foolish! Wow, you should have seen us – they thought we were going that way but we completely outflanked them by going this way. After that, the government knew it had to make a Celtic Tiger or else we’d do it again. The unions were crap. If it had been left to them, theere’d have been bloody general strikes and million-strong marches going round in circles in O’Connell Street. But we showed them the right way to protest.

Come on lads, everyone back to Shannon next week. And will someone bring superglue – I think we could take those APCs out with a few well-placed dollops.

by Ray Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:40

That's funny, I don't remember those general strikes and million-strong marches organised by the trade-union movement in the eighties. Perhaps you could remind me when they happened, and what great victories they achieved?

And while you're at it, you could read my post again - I didn't claim that the AmBush march stopped the war, or brought down a government. I did claim that it was the only march to actually have an effect on George Bush. AmBush delayed the press conference, the other marches didn't have any direct effect. I also argued that the AmBush march raised the morale of those that took part.

Are you going to respond to what I actually said, or would you rather invent some more straw men?

by Akrasia Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:47

There are not two choices, to have a stewarded march to a police pen, speeches and a walk home, attended by 10,000 people
or to have a space for action and imagination attended by 1,000.

The real option is to have 1,000 people doing their direct action and to have 9000 people marching in support of the same Goal. and to have freedom for people to choose either of the options or organise their own.

Such a movement would be far far stronger than having individual parties or organisations petitioning a demographic for membership. There is a need for IAWM style protest as well as Grassroots direct action. The Grassroots already encourage people to decide for themselves how they want to express themselves, if only the IAWM would respect the Grassroots right to exist and contribute towards a free, equal and sustainable world.

Speaking as one of Grassroots in a personal capacity, I think that partnership with the IAWM is now impossible and has been for a long time. There is no trust in the integrity of their leadership or their motivations. In order to allow for diversity in the movement, I believe Grassroots should stand side by side with Anti-War Ireland who from initial encounters, appear to be superior to the IAWM in every way.

As long as the IAWM still continue to organise demonstrations that people are prepared to attend, I believe that the Grassroots and AWI should encourage people to attend but with their eyes open. The activists should inform themselves of the history and politics of the various groups within the anti-globalisation or anti war movements and they should challenge anybody, including AWI or grassroots activists whom they feel are pursuing an agenda incompatible with the success of our various campaigns.

by Wren boy Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:51

Friday’s demo at Shannon was significant in that a sizeable contingent of Shannon residents joined in, their participation sparked by the unprecedented security measures to which they were subjected. To ignore the importance of this development and – worse – to imagine that Saturday’s display of juvenile exuberance (wonderful though it was) can serve as a model for the anti-war movement speaks volumes about the underdeveloped anarchist movement in Ireland.

by Ditch hurler Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:54

"..the underdeveloped anarchist movement in Ireland."

As opposed to what?

The highly developed Marxist movement in Ireland.
Catch yourself on!

by Wren boy Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:05

I'm afraid the underdeveloped anarchist movement stands shoulder to shoulder with the underdeveloped marxist movement. Sorry to dissapoint.

by Paul Taylor Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:21

These Grassroots/Ambush actions are akin to British Mods in the 60s heading down to Brighton for the weekend (the difference being that the Mods actually did battle with the Rockers rather than swarming over their motorbikes). The Grassroots/Ambush stuff must be a hoot for those involved (the Mods had a great time too), but it’s a kind of self-indulgence. Advance promotion for these protests is no different than promotional work for a gig, with fanzine-style posters and chummy word-of-mouth stuff (proof of this is that many people who arrived at the advertised assembly point in Bunratty on Saturday found nothing. Ambush were off chasing APCs and forgot to leave directions. I know people who travelled for hours and then failed to find the bloody protest!).

If the intention is to create a counter-cultural moment in an Irish summer, keep it up. If GG/Ambush want to build an inclusive and effective anti war movement, they need to pull their heads out of their arses and start talking to their mums and dads again.

by Ray Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:25

People were sent down to Bunratty to redirect people arriving there. I can't swear that everyone was redirected successfully, but AmBush did not 'forget' to leave directions.
And the march, when it started, had families with kids, pushing prams, etc - more than were on the IAWM's Shannon protest, I'd bet.

by Ray Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:38

If the AmBush protests were a form of self-indulgence, what was the IAWM's Shannon protest?
The AmBush protest involved more people.
The AmBush protest had more of an effect on Bush and the media.
The AmBush protest was more inspiring for the people involved.
On the other hand, the IAWM protest gave RBB the chance to speak through a really big PA.

by Paul Taylor Tue Jun 29, 2004 13:18

"The AmBush protest involved more people. "

So it IS a numbers game. Just as I thought.

by Ray Tue Jun 29, 2004 13:28

If two protests are otherwise identical, one could argue that the bigger one was better, or 'less self-indulgent'. I think other factors, such as the location and effect, the profile of the demonstrators, etc are more important than simply numbers. But even if you disagree, and think numbers are the most important thing, that would be no reason to criticise the AmBush demo, which attracted more people than the IAWM Shannon demo.

So, why was AmBush 'self-indulgent'? Is that just the new Trot catchphrase to describe any march where people aren't bored shitless listening to speeches, or have to spend their time fending off people selling The Watchtowe... er, Socialist Whatever?

"What, you mean those people had fun on the march? They didn't offer it up as penance for their sins? Self-indulgent fuckers!"

by Anthony - Dublin Grassroots Tue Jun 29, 2004 13:56

Addressing the one point where Jim Monaghan sees the real disagreement: The argument that somehow 'a small number of people doing something "more" militant is better' seems to be repeated on a regular basis.

This strikes me as being a straw man argument. What we had on Saturday was a number of people who were more keen / able to carry out the stated aim of the demo which was to get as close as possible to Shannon and to disrupt Bush's visit as much as possible. That meant that when the first barricades had been been broken through by the those at the head of the march, everyone else could just follow through at their ease. Those not at the front weren't passive spectators feeling left out as Jim suggests but demonstrators who were participating at the level of activity which suited them.

I was one of of the people who made the attempt at running through the industrial estate on Saturday. At the moment, I'm fit and healthy enough to be able to do this. However in a few years time, I'll quite possibly be marching with a child in tow or even many years later I'll be there with a walking stick. I certainly won't be one of those at the front pushing the limits placed on us by the police. Neither will I be feeling that I'm a second-class protester or just a spectator compared to the "elite" engaging in activity that I am unable to. Instead I'll be cheering on those who attempt to push the boundaries of dissent. If on the other hand, they meekly turned away at the sight of a few token barricades such as the ones on the N18 dual-carriageway, I'd be very disappointed.

Over the last couple of years of activity within the Grassroots Network, I've never encountered this "more militant than thou" attitude that would - if it existed - be an elitist way of thinking. Those who are willing to take risks where the less brave (such as me) hesitate lead by example - not by putting themselves on a level above the rest of us.

It's not a choice of either large numbers or militancy. This is a fictional dichotomy created by the conservative left who keep us constrained using the same language and behaviour that the true elite - our rulers - would rather we confined ourselves to.

by pc Tue Jun 29, 2004 16:46

if your such a distinguished group why throw your lot in with swp? all the others groups in iawn are on your wave length fair enough but the swp, have many times have they screwed your over, how may times have they embarrased you... ditch them.... i keep hearing that we must unite against a common enemy, my common enemy is anyone who lies and backstabs to get where they are going anyone... ?

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Network Tue Jun 29, 2004 22:17

"Advance promotion for these protests is no different than promotional work for a gig, with fanzine-style posters and chummy word-of-mouth stuff (proof of this is that many people who arrived at the advertised assembly point in Bunratty on Saturday found nothing. Ambush were off chasing APCs and forgot to leave directions. I know people who travelled for hours and then failed to find the bloody protest!)."

The assembly pointed was moved from Bunratty to facilitate the less able. It was orginally in Bunratty on the basis there would be a massive exclusion zone, and it is more accessible to have an assembly point outside police barriers rather than in them. People went to the assembly point to re-direct people, a bus was also laid on from Bunratty to the new assembly point of the peace camp. No directions were left for the simple reason that after we left the peace camp we wouldn't know where we would be.
People who were late for the assembly time still wouldn't have found us as we moved off as promptly as possible.

65,000 leaflets were produced to advertise this event, and the AWI Friday night gig, by the groups making up AMbush, AWI produced another 10,000. Inumerable press releases were sent, and at least 4 different posters produced - perhaps you would find one of them pretty?

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Network Tue Jun 29, 2004 22:21

"If GG/Ambush want to build an inclusive and effective anti war movement, they need to pull their heads out of their arses and start talking to their mums and dads again."

People in the peace camp included folk in their 40ies and 50ies - some of the people intimatly involved in establishing the peace camp were in that age group, while I spent Saturday making sure people in the under 10 age group kept up with the rest of the march.

by LL Tue Jun 29, 2004 23:22

I saw your Ambush posters and they were awful. Pretty? Don't make me laugh. They were obviously designed to impress schoolkids and rebellious teenagers. Use a graphic designer the next time mate! The AWI and IAWM posters and leaflets made yours look like something thrown together in a pub.

by Terry Wed Jun 30, 2004 15:42

O.K. you didn't think they were pretty, what is the political relevance of differring subjective aesthetic appreciations?, and you can contact some of us at [email protected] and next time you can design the posters...

by Eagle Eye Thu Jul 01, 2004 15:26

Seeing off Bush was a fantastic achievement by the anti-war movement in Ireland, but it's a little depressing to see the reams being written on Indymedia about the specifics of the Bush protests – banners, cops, etc. – but very little analysis. I think this reflects the weakness of the movement as a whole and must be remedied. By the way, the IAWM People's Assembly this weekend would have helped if, as always, it wasn't just an SWP recruitment fair. C'est la vie.

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War / Anti-War Ireland Thu Jul 01, 2004 16:35

The following commentary is by Immanuel Wallerstein of Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University. It offers an insightful appraisal of the current political situation in Iraq – and beyond – following the so-called "hand over of power".

These commentaries are issued periodically and can be received by email by signing up at the web link provided.


Comment No. 140, July 1, 2004
"Geopolitical Turmoil in the Middle East" by Immanuel Wallerstein
Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University

Iraqi sovereignty has been "returned" to the Iraqi people, more or less. What now? Everyone is waiting to see if the guerilla war against the United States will now abate. It seems most unlikely. If not, what can we expect - in the next six months, in the next five years? There are four crucial, interrelated loci of instability and possibility of significant change.

The first question is whether a stable Iraqi government can be created. It seems clear as of now that Iraqi nationalism is back on the front burner of Iraqi politics. The one thing on which the Shia and the Sunni, their clerics and their secular forces, can agree is that Iraq should reestablish itself as a unified state, regain its economic strength, and reassert its political role as a major power in the Arab world. Very few Shia or Sunni leaders are interested in establishing a multiparty system, with alternating governments and extensive civil liberties. Quite the contrary. They want a strong state. What is most probable is that we shall see a neo-Baathist state, with three differences from the previous one. It will be a joint operation of Shia and Sunni elites, not just Sunni. It will have a strong Islamist component, unlike the classic secular Baathist regime, women being the first to suffer from this difference. And Iyad Allawi is positioning himself to be the new Saddam, after he liquidates Saddam in a swift trial, probably not public.

Will this be better for either the Iraqi people or the United States government? This is doubtful. For the moment, the current Iraqi leadership is no doubt afraid to cut its dependence on American forces too quickly, and the U.S. will continue to occupy Iraq for the time being. But the advantage to the Iraqi government from these forces is draining away, and the disadvantage of being linked to them is daily increasing. So, probably within 6-12 months, the Iraqi government (whichever one we have) will request a withdrawal of these forces, to which the U.S. government will be overjoyed to accede. Will we have elections? Maybe.

The fate of the Kurds is the next locus of instability. The new Iraqi government harbors no sympathy for Kurdish desires for a federal regime, and the Kurds are not ready to recognize the legitimacy of any government that does not concede to them what they feel is their fair place. The Kurds are a very large people. They are mostly Sunni Muslims, but up to now Islamist tendencies have been rather weak among them. Collectively, the Kurds present the classic face of a nationalist movement. The Kurds have an unhappy history. The moment for them to have been established as a sovereign state was after the First World War, in the wake of the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire. But they were neither organized enough at that time nor useful enough to any world power to accomplish this. So they remain divided up among many sovereign states - notably Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran - and are well treated in none of them.

Consequently, for quite some time now, they have been pursuing the path of nationalist rebellion, and casting about for allies wherever they could find them. They haven't had too much luck over the past thirty years. In the last decade, they tried the American card, presenting themselves as the most faithful ally of the U.S. in the region. Never mind that the U.S. more or less betrayed them in 1991; they tried again in 2003. Danielle Mitterand, an ardent supporter, warned them then that the U.S. would be an unreliable pillar on which to build their strategy. And she seems to have been proven right. While the U.S. no doubt would like to maintain Kurdish support, the Bush administration has clearly decided that Kurds matter less than the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and that if they have to choose, they'll go with the Ayatollah. In any case, the U.S. has little choice. The U.S. can scarcely continue the overflight protection it gave the Kurds in the 1990s against Saddam Hussein.

The Kurds realize all this. They seem to be turning towards the other friendless group in the Middle East, Israel. And Israel is happy to comply. But while Israel can offer important technical support and political connections, it cannot send an army, and this is what the Kurds may need. Besides, Israel may soon find it has big problems of its own. Sharon's government is in ever greater difficulty. While the Gaza withdrawal plan is a scam, it is still more than Sharon may be able to implement, given the fanatic resistance of the pro-settler forces.
The real problem is not there, however. Palestinian resistance remains unabated. And the Sharon anti-Arafat folly seems to be guaranteeing that the resistance will take on an ever more Islamist flavor, and therefore an ever more uncompromising one. Israel's steady move to the right has created an impasse from which there may be no political way out. Sharon (but also Peres and Barak) have all seemed to think that time is on the Israeli side. Create a fait accompli and sooner or later the world will legitimate it. But, on the contrary, time is very much against Israel.

For thirty years at least, Israel has counted on the unstinting diplomatic, economic, and military support of the United States. And the ties have gotten ever closer. Under the present Bush administration, it is hard to discern any distance whatsoever between the two governments. Israel has become the untouchable taboo in American politics. All politicians support Israel, virtually in all circumstances. But can this last?

The problem for Israel today is the Bush invasion of Iraq. It is a fiasco. And the American public is turning against it, each day more. The latest poll shows that for the first time a majority of the American public believe that the invasion was a mistake. And members of the Establishment like Sen. Fritz Hollings are now ready to write op-ed pieces saying that "the United States has lost its moral authority." As the U.S. reconsiders fundamentally what it has done in Iraq, it will not be too long after that the public will start to reconsider the unconditional support of Israel. And when that collapses, as it has in the last decade in western Europe, Israel will be in real trouble.

This brings us to locus number four of great change - Iran. Iran is a major "middle power" in the world-system. It has a large population. It has wealth. It has highly-educated cadres. It is heir to a very ancient civilization. And it is the principal locus, along with southern Iraq, of Shi'ism. True, it has internal problems in that its clerical regime is authoritarian and much contested by a large part of the population. But this may not affect its geopolitical strength any more than China's tight internal political regime affects its geopolitical strength.
The immediate question for the world's powers about Iran at the moment is nuclear proliferation. I agree with those who say that the Iranian government is not forthright on this issue. I have no doubt that they are pursuing nuclear development. I also have no doubt that, within three years or so at the most, they will explode a nuclear device, and will thereby join the "nuclear club," as one of their officials put it recently.

There are several reasons for this. First, Iran cannot be bribed out of it. This may be a remote possibility in the case of North Korea, but it is a non-starter for Iran. Furthermore, it seems that Iran really needs the nuclear energy, if it is to achieve the kind of major industrial development it has in mind. But most of all, Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers - India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel, and of course the United States. Any Iranian leader who did not seek nuclear weapons would be out of his mind. Furthermore, Iran cannot see why it is all right for India, Pakistan, and above all Israel to be members of the club, but not for Iran.

There is one danger Iran faces. This is not an invasion by the United States, which simply doesn't have the military strength, not to speak of the political strength, to pull it off, no matter how many nuclear bombs Iran will produce. The danger it faces is an Israeli air strike to take out their nuclear facilities the way Israel did with Iraq on June 7, 1981. The Israelis would certainly consider this very seriously. The problem is that the world has changed since 1981. In 1981, Israel was slapped on the wrist for its gross violation of international law. Today, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the world would be less tolerant. Indeed, it would be in an uproar. And the backlash against Israel would be enormous, including in the United States. Very few people, in either the U.S. or Europe, would appreciate being dragged into a military strike against Iran. And Iran could and would use it to enhance its already considerable clout in the region, including in Iraq.

The Bush administration has created a firestorm, and both the U.S. and Israel will pay the price, which is scarcely the scenario the neo-cons had envisaged.

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at [email protected]; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/index.htm