Another Anniversary, another March through London
Andy Newman
Predictably
there is some dispute about the size of London’s 18th March anti-war
demonstration, the 13th national demonstration organised by the Stop the war
Coalition. Socialist Worker makes the ludicrous claim that “Well over 100,000
anti-war protesters from across Britain marched in London”, a figure even more
preposterous than the mere 15000 suggested by the police. Organisers claimed
from the Trafalgar Square platform that it was the biggest demonstration since
2003.
Of course it is hard to judge the size of the demonstration on the ground, but
the evidence from coaches from around the country suggests that while it
larger than the demonstration on September 24th last year, it was about the
same size as the March 2005 demo. This time 5 coaches came from Bristol, and 2
from Leeds (although one of those was a double decker). Everyone I spoke to
from outside London was pleased (and relieved) that the turn out was better
than they had expected, but those of us who actually had to organise transport
are aware of the real situation: the anti-war movement has understandably
fallen back from earlier levels of activism.
According to my observation, there were noticeable fewer older Moslems on the
demonstration, but a good number of younger Asians. It was also noticeable
that the Socialist Party had almost as high a profile on the ground with paper
sellers as the SWP. What was definitely apparent is that the demonstration was
mainly a mobilisation of the left and peace movements, and had not managed to
pull wide support from outside that constituency. The very positive aspect is
that it was a sizeable demonstration, of perhaps 20000 to 40000, which is a
firm foundation, and proof that the anti-war movement has stronger roots than
it did 4 years ago. Nevertheless, the movement simply cannot sustain itself on
an unimaginative and predictable timetable of marches through London. Why not
have the next march at a military base, somewhere like Brize Norton, the
embarkation point for British troops on their way to Iraq?
I was worried about the over-emphasis on the possibility of an attack on Iran,
both as a theme for building the demonstration, and also on the day. So many
of the slogans and placards addressed Iran, and yet there was almost no
mention of Afghanistan, where British troops are actually in theatre. Clearly
there is some very strong posturing from both the US and Iranian governments,
but they are far from war, as evidenced by the bi-lateral talks announced last
week to take place in Baghdad between the two governments on how they can co-operate over the
question of security in Iraq.
Yet there is no sense of perspective on this from much of the left. Labour MP,
Alan Simpson, wrote in last week’s Morning Star that the beginning of the US
war on Iran would be remembered as March 2006, and George Galloway writes in
Socialist Worker: “It almost defies belief that George Bush and Tony Blair
could be contemplating a new war while the fires they have already started in
Iraq and Afghanistan continue to rage.” He is right – it defies belief. There
is absolutely no evidence that Tony Blair’s government is thinking of war on
Iran, except in the alliterative rhetoric of Mr Galloway. It is almost as if
some in the anti-war movement are talking up the prospect of war on Iran in
order to reboot the campaign.
In reality the current belligerent noises from Washington are from more
marginal figures than in the build up to the Iraq war, like Ambassador to the
UN Tom Bolton, and there is no consensus among the neo-cons towards military
action on Iran, though obviously they still talk tough. Other members of the
Bush administration are more nuanced, so for example, R. Nicholas Burns, the
under secretary of state for political affairs, told reporters last week that
the aim of the US government was simply to diplomatically isolate the
Ahmadinejad government, and President Bush's national security adviser,
Stephen J. Hadley, has stressed that US policy of preventing other states
developing nuclear weapons had not been made "with Iran in mind." Clearly the
threat of US military action towards Iran cannot be ruled out, but it is not
an imminent or probable prospect. It does the anti-war movement a disservice
to exaggerate the possibility, and in doing so underplay the immense
complexity of the situation today in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where US
forces are bogged down, and where the US government has lost any clear vision
of what to do next
The important task for the anti-war movement is winning the message that
bringing the troops home now is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. As
Johann Hari recently wrote in the Independent; “The polls show that most of
these violent [Iraqi] militias draw their support from the fact that they
oppose the foreign troops, not from the fact that they massacre fellow-Iraqis.
So the best way to drain their support – and dampen the inertia towards civil
war – is to withdraw the troops now. Iraqis can see this very clearly: a poll
recently conducted by the Ministry of Defence (hardly an anti-war source)
found that 80 percent of Iraqis want out “immediately” so they can deal with
the remaining jihadists and anti-democratic fundamentalists themselves.”
Both nationally and locally the anti-war movement needs to place more emphasis
on providing information and understanding, and building links with Iraqi
civil society, which strengthens our hand in arguing for the prompt withdrawal
of troops.
March 2006
> > home page > >