A Line in the Sand

Michael Sachs* argues that the deployment of unilateral force by the US amounts to an attempt to replace the multilateral system with the military power of the US.

George W. Bush, and the regime he represents, has drawn a line in the sand of history.

Indeed, the second Gulf War of 2003 represents an historical turning point of proportions not witnessed since the end of the Second World War in 1945. On the back of the death of millions, of a holocaust of unprecedented proportions, the international system created after Hitler ’s defeat sought to avert for ever the scale of human tragedy unleashed by Nazism and fascism throughout the world. Bush’s doctrine of ‘regime change’ is nothing more than an imperial assault on the rights of nations to self-determination. Having invented the false notion of an ‘axis of evil’, the Bush administration has sought to create for itself an axis of occupation: the American occupation of Afghanistan, the American occupation of Iraq, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

This deployment of unilateral force by the USA amounts, quite literally, to the end of ‘international law’, the defeat of ‘collective security’ and an attempt to replace the post Second World War multilateral system with the jack-boot of military power exercised in the face of world opinion.

Of course, the US occupation will be dressed in the clothes of democracy, but we all know that ‘the clothes do no maketh the man’. Democracy means government by the people: by its very definition it must emanate from the people; by its very nature it cannot be imposed by foreign occupation. In place of an Iraqi dictatorship, America has decided to impose a foreign dictatorship on Iraq.

Beyond the most immediate causes of war, and deep within the bowels of the current crisis of the global political system, lies a profound and sustained crisis of the global economy, a social disaster of historic proportions and the looming threat of environmental calamity. It is obvious to all that the global system is unsustainable. Even more obvious is that the agenda of neo-liberalism; the Washington-consensus, which prevailed in the 1990’s, cannot provide a solution.

Indeed, even the inventors of these programmes have realised their bankruptcy. This is why the mask of neo-liberalism has fallen and revealed the face of neo-imperialism.

Behind the dictatorship imposed on Iraq, is a dictatorship to be imposed on all of us. Even before September 11 it was increasingly clear that the Bush administration is determined to decide for the world. Its refusal to submit to international law, its rejection of even the smallest concessions to the global environmental consensus, its deliberate actions to undermine any progress toward a fairer world order all bear testimony to the reality of global power.

The global political crisis places the question of global democracy and peace on the agenda. The economic and social crises place the question of a redistribution of global resources on the agenda. The environmental crisis places the questions of sustainable development on the agenda.

The Bush administration’s answer to these questions is dictatorship, war and poverty. Essentially, this represents the response of reaction to the challenges facing humanity. A response which threatens a global conflagration of unprecedented proportions, a future of despair in which the poor will, as always, be the greatest losers.

These historic developments call on progressives of all countries, of all religions, of all ideologies to unite around the broadest possible alliance in opposition to war and imperialism.

Pacifists (who oppose war as a matter of principle), socialists (who see a war waged by capital against workers), nationalists (who wish to defend the hard-won sovereignty of their nations), democrats (who believe in the sovereignty of the people), environmentalists (who know that the only workable solutions are global): all peace loving people around the world are challenged to act in unity in defence of peace, democracy and development.

In South Africa, the ‘Stop the War ’ campaign aims to do just this: to unite the broadest possible range of South Africans behind common programmes that advance the slogans: ‘Stop the War ’ and ‘Peace for Development’. Recent weeks have witnessed an historic unity in action: between the main political parties of the oppressed, the union movement, the religious sector and civil society: a unity unprecedented since the demise of the apartheid state.

Of course this does not mean that those who participate agree on everything. The striking fact, one could say, is the extent to which the participating organisations disagree. As the declaration of South Africans opposed to war in Iraq clearly states: “our democracy celebrates the expression of diversity, and none of the participating organisations have agreed to withhold or modify their divergent positions on the many questions facing our country, our continent and the world.” Numerous actions for peace have been held across the country so far. While small by comparison with the international mobilisation, the marches in South Africa’s main urban centres of Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town all displayed an unprecedented unity of action. Less well reported, but no less significant has been the extensive mobilisation beyond these main centres: in Bloemfontein, Polokwane, Mafikeng, Newcastle, Port Elizabeth, Nelspruit, and Kimberly, to name just a few.

On all these occasions the diversity of the anti- war movement was clear for all to see. On all these occasions pacifists, nationalists, socialists, democrats and environmentalists joined hands, aware of the diversity amongst themselves, aware of the contradictions that continue to exist amongst them.

But more than this, all were aware that the regime of George W. Bush has drawn a line in the sand, and we must all decide on which side we stand.

* Michael Sachs is a member of the coordinating committee of the ‘Stop the War’ Campaign. This article is written in his personal capacity and first appeared in the Mail and Guardian.