The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Global Anti-War Movements

(Participant) One of the questions that interests me is: what will be the future impact or continuation of the vast global anti-war movement that has emerged during this conflict? I think it is a remarkable event, possibly of great historical importance, although I also think the enthusiasts who are now proclaiming the emergence of a new "global superpower" are vastly overstating the case.

(Participant) My guess is that, in spite of all the anti-war protesters, Bush will get away with this, and I predict that something like a war there will continue through the 2004 elections. I can't believe that the protests won't peter out.

(Farhad Saba) Walter: I have a few cousins living in Paris and they tell me that some in France have elevated the status of the United States to a "hyper-power." So, we are not a super power anymore. At least in France!

Also, I wonder if those who protest "against the war" in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran and other countries with emerging polities and economies:

• are fully informed about the issues involved, since the press in those countries are heavily censored by their governments, and access to satellite TV is limited to the elite;
• would be allowed to demonstrate against the oppressive regimes in other countries (e. g. why don’t we see Indonesians demonstrating against the oppressive regime of Syria, or Iran for that matter?);
• are allowed to demonstrate against the US because
• it does not cost their government any political capital,
• it might even add some political capital to their government in their own eyes,
• it is a safety valve for people to have something to demonstrate against and vent their frustrations,
• it would show that these governments are "democratic" and allow protesting as long as it would not have any domestic impact.

(Participant) To me, much of the protest resembles a "Greek chorus"--an expression of specific personal agendas rather than a reflection of serious thinking about all that is going on. Their view is so one-sided, and ignores so many "realities" that it's impossible to take them seriously. Bit players with canned lines. That there are many of them seems just as irrelevant. Quantity is a poor way to determine value. I'd be willing to risk some actual money on the proposition that here in the USA plenty of them drive SUVs and waste energy in countless other ways without even a moment's thought about the role they play in the economics of the world.

(Participant) Kip, I know you tend to support the use of power, and I would agree that power unused erodes. But military force is not the only way to demonstrate power, or to use it. We in the US have a number of levers under our control to exert power. I, and most of those protesters that you demean, do not feel that we used our power appropriately in this instance. We are likely to achieve a surrender in Iraq, and that will bring about a sense of relief to most, and probably renewed support for Bush, but some of us will continue to think that the entire adventure was a mistake, as we do about our invasion of Afghanistan, and our conduct of the first Gulf War.

The accusation that the protesters don't know what they're talking about collides not only with democratic principles, in which the populace is always operating on less information than the leaders, but with the implication that those who are not protesting are possibly better informed, which I'm certain is not true. In a situation where the legislators are owned by special interests, making the public impotent at the polls, we should be grateful that we have protesters, an aspect of the beauty of democracy.

(Participant) I think Fred and Kip raise important points in their critique of the protest movement. It's not a question of whether the protesters are, in the final analysis, right or wrong--let's stipulate that they are right, and that Dick's defense of them is right as well. The question that troubles me is whether we can move toward a greater degree of dialogue, in the Dan Yankelovich sense, and beyond the strongly polarized opinions that I hear expressed so much, both among my friends and in the media.

(Participant) Hmmm. The great bulk of the uninformed might be classed in two groups: 1) those who acknowledge the fact and accept it as a limitation, and 2) those who either reject the fact or do not consider it a limitation. I hesitate to conclude that "those who are not protesting" are not better informed about something--maybe it's that they recognize the complexities and reject simplistic conclusions about the war being either right or wrong.

(I think going to war was dumb. I don't know if it was wrong.)

Protesters as beauty? Well, there's something about the "eye of the beholder."

(Participant) In that instance I happen to be on the side of the protesters, so your "eye of the beholder" comment could conceivably have merit. But I also remember the famous episode in which the ACLU protected the rights of the Neo-Nazis to parade in Skokie, Illinois, some years back, and I regarded that at the time as a beautiful example of the workings of democracy. Moreover, I think that those who support the war, and a lot of them protested, were very much within their rights to do so, and represent another beautiful example of democracy.

Now I surely agree with Walt that I wish we could enlarge the group that is having a deeper and less polarized discussion of these issues, but I think there will always be a place for demonstrations and soapboxes. At least I hope so. Unless Ashcroft keeps taking away those liberties.

As to whom is better informed, remember that 42% of Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, and you can be sure that they were not marching with the anti-war crowd.

(Farhad Saba) I think we have to make a differentiation between demonstrations that take place in free and democratic societies, and those that are taking place under totalitarian regimes. Not all demonstrations are created equal. Obviously, there are genuine demonstrations. When I leave home to go to work, there are about 10 to 20 people who demonstrate against the war at the cross section leading to my condo everyday. That is a genuine demonstration. The right of those people should be protected by all means.

However, I have seen how demonstrations can be staged in totalitarian countries, and I look at those with a very cynical eye. Even in such countries, people should have the right to demonstrate and protest–staged or otherwise—don’t get me wrong. Nevertheless, their political importance should be weighed accordingly. I give a lot more credence to the 10 to 20 people who are out there everyday around the corner from my place. I cannot give the same weight to even 100,000 demonstrators in other countries that simply do not have a well-articulated political system without knowing how the demonstration was organized.

(Participant) Dick, I was talking with my wife tonight about the protestors and as I said to her--"We need the protestors. We need those voices to remind us, to rein us in, and the beauty of America is that we have the freedom that allows it. War is a terrible thing and it's important to have those who protest it." My 1:7 comment was in response to what Walt said about the global aspects. He may be right that there is something to look at there, but my reading of the protests is that much of it (not all of it) is kind of built in to the situation. It may not represent a large number of well informed people taking a serious stance.

Also, let me go "on record" as saying that by and large I support pretty much everything about life itself (use of force AND protesting). My general role in life (not something I have specifically chosen) seems to be most often to work hard to understand all points of view and agendas and to take a side only when I sense that some point of view is not being considered. I'm sure you are keenly aware of the fact that I am sometimes inconsistent even in that.

(Participant) I am aware of that, Kip, and enjoy your rattling the cages from time to time. I don't know what you mean by saying that many of the protests are "built into the system." Certainly there were some overseas that were, as Fred has pointed out, probably state sponsored in some way. But to diminish the unprecedented outpouring of condemnation of this war, around the world, perhaps most heavily among our democratic allies, or former allies, seems to me to be treating them the way Bush did, by comparing those ten million to a focus group. Granted, only some fraction of them could be considered well informed, but the gross numbers alone make that fraction sizeable. I can't understand why you discount that remarkable worldwide movement? Is it because they don't agree with you?

(Participant) Dick, I speak about some of the protesters from my own personal experience. When I talk to these people (whom I know) I am struck by the fact that they have no historical knowledge, no "Realpolitik" knowledge, no economic knowledge, no understanding of cultures, etc. They simply have the opinion that war is bad. They are not open to discussing the problems, nor are they open to any thinking other than their own.

Previous Page          Next Page

top