(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
I participated in demonstrating against war in Iraq. I'm proud of that. Along with tattered youth school pupils, old ladies and immigrants of Iraqi origin, I went on a train to war in Iraq. No war in my name, I said. No war in our name, told me.
Some time before February 15, I was at a meeting of a local group planning demonstrations. Various tools we could use were discussed, some of which were fun, some of which were solid and exhausted. One of the suggestions annoyed me. Someone suggested getting a picture of Bush so people could throw arrows at the American president. – Now we have to think that it is actually not Bush we are against, we are against the war, I said.
I am happy to admit that I do not like George W. Bush. I will admit that today, just over a year later, I hope for a candidate other than the current president than I ever did when it comes to an American election. But constantly I get annoyed when I think of the proposal to throw arrows at the picture of the man. The task of peacekeeping was to fight the war, not to comment on US domestic policy, nor to propose regime change in the United States à la Petter Nome's well-known e-mail. Our job was to prevent Norwegian war participation. Our job, along with protesters around the world, was to give a clear signal to Bush, Blair, Aznar and other heads of state that this war was not going to happen in our names.
For peace or against war?
But one thing should have in common with these heads of state. Me should also want regime change in Iraq. Me should have come up with a credible alternative to war. Too often I even look up as a question mark if someone asked us for this, often even with fog talk, some time came peacekeeping representatives with questioners who served as pure support to Saddam Hussein. When British politician Tony Benn called Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to the CIA's puppets, some of us were completely unanimous. I think I see Saddam's smile.
This was the first point the peace movement failed. Me was a conduit for war and not a conduit for peace. Me was a stir against Bush, and too often forgot to be against Saddam Hussein.
For peace or against the United States?
Then came the war. And amazingly, there was also support for the faithful of Saddam Hussein's men. Avisa Klassekampen expressed hope, not fear, but hope that the American forces would get stuck in the desert sand. "On Tuesday morning, a sandstorm disrupted US operations south of Iraq's capital, Baghdad," the newspaper wrote in the camp.
Why was it such good news? Did everyone realize that Baghdad was about to fall, didn't I? When the war first started, was it not better with a swift war than with a prolonged carnage?
Do not follow the Class Struggle. "A quick statement for the United States over Iraq will (…) encourage Washington to continue along the line of 'preventive warriors'," the newspaper wrote. There is undoubtedly a point, but there is also plenty of what Dagens Næringsliv in response to another Klassekampen leader calls heartbreaking cynicism.
In a way, Klassekampen got the say. The Americans have to that extent got stuck in Iraq. The political situation in the country is unstable, dangerously unstable. And so on Christmas Eve itself, the writer and International Socialist activist Vegard Velle comes up with a shocking statement: – The peace movement should defend the suicide bombers in Iraq. We should support the armed resistance to the occupation.
Although Velle quickly encounters adversity, more are hanging on. Internationally, even more prominent war opponents go out with what can hardly be called other than support for fanatics and terrorists.
"You can not be picky," said John Pilger. "Anti-imperialism," said Tariq Ali. And under the guise of supporting the Iraqi resistance is supporting the struggle against "imperialism" and "new colonization", many on the Norwegian left and in the peace movement joined in and thus failed for the second time. The peace movement was not for peace. It was hardly against war. Parts of her had begun to support armed actions as long as they were just the "right way" – that is, towards the United States.
Who threatens democracy?
The situation in Iraq has changed. Saddam Hussein's regime has been removed. It did not happen as it should have happened, but it has happened anyway, and a transition to a form of democracy, despite many shortcomings, is under way. Professional movement, women's movement and other organizations have come to life. A free press strives to survive, but it does exist – the first newspaper to come out after the fall of Saddam's regime was in fact a communist one. Elections are planned for 2005. And the brutal truth that parts of the old peace movement do not dare to admit is that the so-called "resistance fighters" are a far greater threat to a future democracy in Iraq than the American, British and for that matter Norwegian forces are .
The US invasion of Iraq has produced no less terrorism, neither in Iraq nor in the world at large. The invasion also does not provide more stability in the Middle East. But there is also no blind support for fanatics. The "anti-imperialist" resistance has some fables about murdered coalition soldiers, UN personnel, voluntary police forces and ordinary civilians, civilians who are as innocent as those who were hit by American bombs during the invasion.
Peacekeeping should now prove its name worthy and extend its hands to those who peacefully work for peace and democracy in Iraq. This applies to organizations that have been and are US-friendly, but also to organizations that are not and are unlikely to be. To do so does not in any way suggest that I should begin to trust the invasion forces, to lies from Washington, London or Rome or, on the part, to Richard Perle. We should, should and must continue to criticize a blood-stained American foreign policy. But the focus number one for peacekeeping must be to work for peace, not to work for the United States to suffer defeat.
On March 20, "Bring the Soldiers Home", a far narrower initiative than the "Peace Initiative", organizes a demonstration against the occupation of Iraq. The demonstrators ride proudly on white principle horses, but they ask themselves how wise it would be to pull out the soldiers regardless of what consequences such a withdrawal will have?
