|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Not In Our Name: Growing Opposition To The War On Terrorism |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ricky Baldwin
Email: baldwinricky (nospam) hotmail.com (verified)
Phone: (217)356-2205
Address: 606 West White St, Champaign, IL 61820 |
07 Sep 2002
|
|
Reports of American unanimity and acquiescence in the "war on terrorism" have been greatly exaggerated. Dissent is widespread and growing. |
Not in Our Name:
Growing Opposition to the War on Terrorism
By Ricky Baldwin
When local peace activists began holding anti-war signs on Prospect Avenue last fall, they heard a lot of jeering. Almost every Saturday through the winter months and into the spring they were there, waving at the rare signs of approval but generally mocked and booed. The famous polls, after all, showed Americans in favor of military action by up to 92 percent (New York Times/CBS Poll, NYT, Sept. 25, 2001). Fear had seized Americans by the millions, as anthrax appeared in the mail and rumors flew of future terrorism at malls, convenience stores, and elsewhere. American flags had quickly sold out after September 11, prompting newspapers to run images of flags for readers to cut out. The words, "United We Stand," had become ubiquitous - implying that critics were at best out of step and dangerously outnumbered, if not virtually nonexistent.
Commentators cheered when President Bush began to threaten not only those responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, and not only those who might harbor them, but anyone who dared to oppose US plans. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists," Bush had said, to wild approval in the press and Congress. Democrats in Congress rose with Republicans to applaud increasingly cartoon-like tough talk coming out of the Oval Office, and to express the virtually unanimous support in the legislative branch for Presidential carte blanche. Their sincerity was readily apparent within one month, as almost all members of Congress gave the "USA PATRIOT Act" their rubber stamp by Oct. 12 and cast votes for just about anything else the White House wanted, all with enthusiastic approval by the media. Christmas, it seemed for the White House, could go on forever.
Cracks in the Façade
But in the spring, local demonstrators began noticing more and more thumbs up. A few passing motorists stopped to talk, says organizer Susan Parenti, or even joined the demonstrations. Then an anti-war contingent in Urbana's Fourth of July parade sparked a surprising reception: applause for somewhere between half and two-thirds of the route, peppered here and there by heckling and the odd squirt from a water gun.
The contingent, organized by Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE), consisted of a float satirizing the "drumbeat of war," a pageant queen dubbed "Miss Information" riding in a red convertible and a ribald band of peaceniks "marching to the beat of a different drum." On the float eight uniformly clad readers sat in chairs and turned the pages of mainstream newspapers in time with a large drum like galley slaves. The News-Gazette's extensive coverage of the parade failed to mention the peace group, the Green Party or the local Independent Media Center - all critical of the Bush Administration's "war on terrorism."
But cracks had begun to appear in the façade of unity. A speaker's bureau representing AWARE organized an assortment of talks at area churches and community meetings, where by all accounts audiences "ate it up." Another project, dubbed the Mutual Aid Pact, provides assistance to anyone targeted for ethnic or political reasons, and has attracted a numerous offers of help. Other groups, too, are finding support in many cases where they expected none. In North Carolina, a peace group reported a similarly positive response on July 4th when they carried signs of popular heroes who stood for peace and against militarism, such as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr. and others. This group marched behind a banner that read, "Greensboro Peace Coalition - Not in Our Name," and passed out leaflets advocating peace instead of war. They also reported few catcalls, many smiles and even won the parade committee's "Best Interpretation of Theme" - much to activists' surprise.
Contrary to the predominant image of American unanimity, there is mounting evidence of widespread skepticism and outright dissent. "In the United States, there is a level of questioning, openness, protest, and concern about these actions which is beyond anything in my memory at any remotely comparable stage of a military confrontation," noted MIT Professor Noam Chomsky (BBC, February 27). Indeed, in September and October students at over 146 campuses in 36 states held rallies against military action, according to the New York Times. Thousands of students, religious leaders and others attended these rallies, and thousands more attended educational events organized by anti-war students and others.
Mainstream news sources have been almost uniformly dismissive of this opposition, underreporting most deviation from the theme of unity. Activists across the country have complained that events passed without notice in the press. In a recent example noted by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), on June 14 President Bush gave a commencement address at Ohio State University, where several protesters - among the graduates and in the audience - stood up and turned their backs, one draped in a Palestinian flag, despite repeated threats from the university administration that anyone demonstrating or heckling would be arrested. Many more graduates reportedly wore peace signs on their mortarboards, and several protesters demonstrated outside the stadium, (Columbus Dispatch, June 15). But the Washington Post reported, "Bush basked in the adulation of 55,000 people who treated him to standing ovations... If there was a protest in the stadium it was not visible to reporters," (June 15).
In fairness, however, some media outlets did give student actions more extensive coverage early on, such as the New York Post's article on one anti-war event that drew over 200 people, (Oct. 3). The article, titled "CCNY Bashes America - Students, Profs Blame Attacks on US," explained: "Anti-Americanism and anti-war sentiment raged yesterday during a 'teach-in' at City College of New York. The vast majority of the students and professors who spoke ... ranted against any American military action..."
The "Public"
Off campus, too, many thousands of Americans from all walks of life attended peace rallies and vigils in the immediate aftermath of September 11. The largest were in New York City, including a public debate in Central Park, and in Portland, Oregon, reportedly drawing 2000 or more. But more than 20 cities, including Urbana, saw smaller events with participants ranging from about 60 in Cincinnati to over 1000 in Seattle. In Atlanta, for example, on September 15 a crowd of 200 held a rally for peace and a prayer vigil at the tomb of Martin Luther King, Jr. Most media outlets either ignored these events or mischaracterized them as solely to commemorate those killed in the attacks with scant reference to the calls for peace, much less criticism of US foreign policy.
By September 29, tens of thousands marched against the prospect of war in Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and hundreds more in New York and Chicago. Diverse speakers from religious groups, unions and other organizations spoke against the rush to war, but received practically no mention in most news media. In August, much media attention had focused on the potential for violence at the planned protests of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. But when the IMF and World Bank cancelled their meetings in the wake of September 11, many organizations pulled out of that effort. Others decided to turn their attention to peace, and the spotlight darkened. A second national mobilization on April 20 also drew tens of thousands, but also received scant attention in the mainstream press.
Outside the US, opposition to the attacks on Afghanistan - and now to the Bush Administration's proposal to topple Saddam Hussein - is, as usual, far more popular and informed, though consumers of US media would hardly know it. Over 550 cities worldwide saw anti-war events in September and October, according to one count. When President Bush visited France in late May, almost 5000 people reportedly marched through the streets of Paris in angry protest, some shouting, "Bush, you are a terrorist!" French President Jacques Chirac dismissed the protests as "marginal," (AP, May 25).
When Bush went to Germany, thousands of angry protesters marched against his "war on terrorism," 80 Members of Parliament refused to attend his address in the Reichstag and others unfurled an anti-war banner in the audience, according to the London Guardian, (May 23). Over half the British people, and 64 percent of Prime Minister Tony Blair's own constituency, oppose any British support for proposed US attacks on Iraq, say British polls.
Doubts Grow
While the Bush Administration's insistence on unquestioning allegiance may have pushed some Americans away, it does not explain the apparent shift in public opinion less than six months after terrorist attacks brought down the World Trade Center. Another possible explanation, favored by some local activists, is Enron. By March, three quarters of the Americans said they thought the Bush Administration was either hiding something or lying when it comes to its dealings with Enron executives, according to a CBS poll, up from 67 percent in February. The number of people who said the Administration was lying had more than doubled, to one in five. Only thirteen percent thought members of the Bush Administration were telling the entire truth.
College students initially supported air strikes by 79 percent, according to a poll in October by the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government, and the use of ground troops by 68 percent. But by May, a new poll by the Panetta Institute for Public Policy found that college students supporting the government's anti-terror efforts had declined to 57 percent, and 74 percent said poorly performing schools are a bigger threat to the US than terrorism.
But some polls - largely unreported - have painted a different picture all along, of widespread uncertainty, division and dissent. One poll by the Pew Research Center in October found that 20 percent of African Americans, more than three times as many as whites, did not support military action against Afghanistan, and more were undecided. Another, by Gallup International, found overwhelming worldwide opposition, and much lower support in the US than in other polls.
For a start, Europeans in the poll overwhelmingly opposed military action against Afghanistan, supporting extradition and trial for suspected terrorists instead, by 77 percent in Germany, 67 percent in France, 86 percent in Spain, to name a few countries where terrorist attacks are not uncommon. Even in Great Britain, the famously staunch US ally and a nation under frequent attack by terrorists, respondents opposed attacking Afghanistan by 75 percent. In fact, of those countries included, only India and Israel joined the US with more than half in favor of military action - by 72 and 77 percent, respectively.
In the US, respondents were more equivocal: 54 percent of those polled favored military action, compared to 30 percent for extradition and trial of suspected terrorists. The rest were unsure. These numbers may have once appeared disappointing to peace advocates, but they are a far cry from the numbers reported in the mainstream press - perhaps too far to be credible. Still, taken together, these polls raise doubts about such figures as the 92 percent favoring military action in the New York Times, an approval rating rarely seen in a democracy.
And there does appear to have been some deeper change in the public's view of the Bush Administration's crusade. Another poll conducted in May found that 41 percent of the American people believe the US is winning the "war on terrorism," down from 66 percent in January, (USA Today/CNN/Gallup). And according to Newsweek, Americans want a full investigation into intelligence failures preceding September 11, by a margin of 68 to 24, (May 27). These suggest serious doubts across the political spectrum, whatever the respondents' prior commitment to peace. And, though not a poll, sales shot to 160,000 by mid-May for 9-11, a collection biting interviews with Noam Chomsky on US foreign policy in relation to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Our Grief is Not a Call for War
"Marginal" or not, this growing willingness to question the Administration's program has begun to show results: changes in the notorious TIPS system, several judicial reversals in recent months, and cancellation of plans to establish an office of disinformation. Top brass in the pentagon have begun expressing doubts about proposals to attack Iraq, and economic experts have begun arguing against destabilizing that country. Their opinions are less serious monkey wrenches in the machinery than a movement among perhaps the least likely circles: victims' families.
The large numbers of family members of those killed in the World Trade Center attacks, who publicly opposed the 'military solution', were largely invisible to the nation's media consumers. Rita Lasar, for one, who lost a brother in the North Tower, has been very outspoken and also visited Afghanistan after the bombing, terming that country "Ground Zero Two." She and others who lost family members on September 11 marched from the Pentagon to New York City in late November carrying signs that read, "Our grief is not a call for war," and, "Not in our name." The Times did run a photograph of the march on Dec. 2, with the signs cropped out, and with a caption explaining that the victims' families were "mourning" those killed. They were mourning, of course, and opposing war - and a lie of omission is still a lie. |
|
