What should Australia's
huge anti-war movement be doing now that the war against Iraq has begun?
To get the views of the Socialist Alliance, Australia's main left organisation,
91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's NORM DIXON interviewed its three national conveners
— DAVID GLANZ, RIKI LANE and DICK NICHOLS.
Anyone who has been to the most recent demonstrations against the war knows that millions of Australian are feeling enormous anger and shame at Australia's involvement in what they see as a criminal and immoral act. What can be done?
Nichols: The first thing to grasp is that the anti-war movement has not been defeated. If it hadn't been for the movement, the war would probably have begun much earlier.
And it would have begun with the original “shock and awe” bombing campaign, in which the Pentagon planned to drop 3000 missiles and bombs on Iraq within the first 48 hours. Instead, the White House ordered a limited first strike, followed by a gradual escalation in bombing, to avoid an immediate explosion of massive protests around the world.
Secondly, the movement retains the potential to force an end to Australian involvement and to make the Howard government pay a huge political price for its complicity in this crime.
The movement has to act on four fronts at least. It has to continue to build the biggest possible mobilisations, it has to push for industrial action against the war, it has to get behind the young people's powerful Books Not Bombs protests, and it has to campaign for the opposition parties in the Senate to block the military provisions of the 2003 federal budget and force Howard to face the people in an election.
But many of the hundreds of thousands who turned out for the February 14-16 marches are probably feeling demoralised now, believing that government just isn't listening?
Lane: Activists too are not immune to that feeling of demoralisation, but we have to keep our heads and learn from history. We can't know how long this war will go on for, nor how it will end up. What we do know is that US, British and Australian troops will kill thousands of people. And even if they succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, a long occupation will follow. So we have to prepare for a long battle to end imperialist intervention.
The anti-war movement needs to keep putting the arguments for "troops out" and the peoples of Iraq to be allowed to decide their own fate. At the same time, I think we need to make it clear that we support Kurdish self-determination and are in no wat supporters of Hussein's brutal government
I took my 11-year old son to the last student rally in Melbourne. On the way, I told him that I thought it would be small, as many people were demoralised by the war having started. He replied: “That doesn't make sense: wouldn't that just make you fight harder?"
When we got there, the rally was much larger than I expected, and mostly secondary students. My son's judgment was more accurate, because he was closer to their anger at this war. The energy and commitment of the young students was an inspiration for me — and should be for the anti-war movement as a whole.
The level of organised trade union opposition to the war has so far been symbolic. What should be done on this front?
Glanz: There are some good initiatives to build on, like the union march in Melbourne the day after the war broke out, the workplace-focused days in NSW and Victoria, and the development of Workers Against War in Melbourne. But we need a two-pronged approach to move things on now.
There needs to be meetings in hundreds, if not thousands, of workplaces. Many rank-and-file workers are either sucked in by Howard's lies, do not see how war is union business, or are unsure what union action can achieve. These arguments need to be taken up face to face.
That means we need a clear call from the top of the movement, to give confidence to the many workers who do want to act against the war.
There should be mass delegates meetings in every city, with the union leadership putting the case for union stop-work rallies. Sooner would be better, but May 1 is an obvious symbolic date for action — one that has been reclaimed for action by some unions and anti-capitalists since 2001.
Lane: The anti-war movement needs to keep putting the arguments for “troops out" and for the people of Iraq to be allowed to decide their own fate. Most importantly, the debate has to be taken into workplaces.
To actually get Australian troops out, we are going to need industrial action through strikes, bans on defence installations and disruption of military supplies. That will only happen if workers are convinced both that the war is wrong and of the connections between Howard's war on the peoples of Iraq and his war at home — on workers' conditions and union rights.
The Socialist Alliance national executive recently decided to launch a campaign against all military provisions in Howard government's May budget. Why? What will the campaign be trying to achieve?
Glanz: The next federal budget, on May 13, will be a war budget in two senses. It will provide the funds to pay for the current war, as well as making a down payment on preparation for the next one. It will also mark an intensification of Howard's war on workers.
Treasurer Peter Costello has already made it clear there will be no extra money for health, education and welfare. The needs of the military come first. Many workers and students are already seeing that the budget will be the most savage attack on us since 1996.
The aim of our anti-budget campaign is twofold. First, to undermine the basis of the war by showing workers that they are in the firing line too. That is why the alliance has already issued a petition attacking the war and the budget and calling for opposition parties to block it.
Second, to pull together a broad coalition of unionists, peace activists, those involved in welfare issues, supportive Greens or Labor lefts, to campaign against the budget not only before but after May 13.
We are urging alliance branches to hold public meetings or rallies to launch the campaign.
Is there really any chance of convincing the Greens, Democrats and the ALP to block the budget in the Senate? Isn't this just a propaganda exercise?
Nichols: The response to the alliance's petition campaign has already been enormous. That's because it corresponds to the feeling of outrage that is so strong at the moment. We're certain that thousands will sign on before the budget, when the petition will be presented to the Senate opposition parties.
But will it have any impact? Labor leader Simon Crean's office and Labor shadow treasurer Bob McMullan have already said that they won't block the budget, and some people are saying that Howard could actually win an election that arose from blocking the budget.
Nichols: Obviously, a campaign to have the Senate opposition parties block the budget won't succeed in isolation from the broader anti-war movement. The more protest from all parts of society, the greater will be the pressure on Labor to change its line on this issue too. And mass pressure works. If it wasn't the enormous February protests that forced Crean to change his original line on the war, what was it?
If the Senate opposition parties moved an amendment to the budget to delete all military expenditures in a context of ongoing protest and industrial action against the war, it would make any subsequent election a referendum on the war itself.
In that sort of political atmosphere, provided Labor and the other Senate opposition parties campaigned seriously for “troops out", Howard would lose.
On the other hand, if Crean continues with his present contradictory line (against the war, but also against the withdrawal of Australian troops) Howard would most likely eat him alive.
The point is simple: if the opposition parties base themselves on the movement, they and the movement can win. But if they try to thwart the movement, they will lose.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, April 2, 2003.
Visit the