As the Bush administration increases its propaganda campaign for war against Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in the United States, Canada, and in countries from Japan to Turkey in favour of peace.
This massive resistance, even before a war has begun, represents the best hope for preventing a US attack on Iraq that is unnecessary, immoral, and illegal.
It is unnecessary because, despite President Bush's claims, Iraq is years away from developing nuclear weapons (as the CIA itself admits). UN weapons inspections make it virtually impossible for Saddam Hussein to hide any significant weapons of mass destruction. (The inspectors themselves are reasonably satisfied with Iraqi co-operation, and have requested more time to finish their work.)
Even if Iraq had such weapons, Saddam Hussein knows that their use would mean his certain destruction. He is a vicious and murderous thug, but he is not suicidal. As CIA Director George Tenet was written, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States. Ironically, Tenet does foresee one situation in which Iraq might attack the US: if Saddam should "conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred."
The White House claims that Saddam supports al-Qaeda terrorists, but the US has presented no proof. Even the CIA thinks it is unlikely. It is likely, however, that another US attack in the Middle East, with perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilian corpses, would convince more people that terrorism is justified--which is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants.
A war against Iraq would be immoral for many reasons, most clearly because it would inflict unimaginable suffering on innocent Iraqis. The Australian press reports that the US plans to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by using 800 cruise missiles in two days, including attacks on "power and water supplies." The architect of this strategy has compared the expected damage to "the nuclear weapon at Hiroshima."
Such tactics violate both the UN Charter and international law against war crimes.
Moreover, where would such pre-emptive action lead? There is talk in Washington that, once they finish with Iraq, the next target will be Iran.
Although the Bush administration is determined to go to war, it is not impossible to avert this catastrophe. Washington is extremely sensitive to domestic public opinion, and polls show that support for Bush is slipping and that most US citizens do not want their government to go to war without the support of their allies and the United Nations.
Public opinion among Washington's major allies, however, is strongly opposed to war-- an overwhelming 80% of Canadians reject unilateral US aggression. France has called war with Iraq "a dead end." Public pressure has encouraged Chancellor Schroeder to say that Germany will not support a UN resolution for war. Greece holds the presidency of the European Union, and Prime Minister Costas Simitis has succinctly summed up the feeling in Europe, stating, "We don't want a war." Russia and China hold the same position.
Even Prime Minister Tony Blair (referred to as Bush's "poodle" in the British press) now seems willing, in the face of determined opposition from the British public and his own caucus, to wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job. There is significant opposition building even within the US elite, including the Pentagon and the Republican Party.
The rush to war is clearly slowing, and increasing public pressure--letter writing, phone calls, and demonstrations--in the US and on allied governments like Canada, provide a real chance to force the Bush regime to back down (just as Nixon gave up his plan to drop nuclear weapons on Vietnam in the face of massive domestic and international opposition).
As President Eisenhower understood, when enough people refuse to tolerate war, governments will be forced to find peaceful means to settle disputes.
So, instead of beginning another round of killing, why not take this opportunity to encourage an overall peace plan for the Middle East that is based on mutual security?
Furthermore, imagine how global security would increase if the US were to begin to address the root causes of terrorism and allocate less than 10% of its military budget to fund the additional $38 billion each year that would provide basic education, health care, food, and safe water to all the world's poor (according to figures from Results Canada). That $38 billion is also roughly equal to the savings in taxes each year for wealthy stockholders with Bush's proposed tax cuts.
Global poverty underlies most of the violence in the world, and destroys tens of millions of lives every year. It is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
Peter G. Prontzos, a former corporal in the US Marine Corps, lives in White Rock and teaches Political Science at Langara College in Vancouver. He is a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.