David Spratt
"The peace movement" is one of those odd phrases: it means everything to everybody, and often nothing in particular.
While opposition to war, militarism and the global arms race are common threads, practically speaking "peace" encompasses three often-distinct strands:
- anti-nuclear forces, concerned with uranium mining and toxic dump issues in Australia, the development of the global nuclear industry and the continuing deployment of nuclear weapons;
- campaigns opposed to imperial intervention and neo-colonialism, and supporting the rights of all peoples to self-determination; and
- activists coming from pacifist and feminist traditions, who
sometimes engage in these activist campaigns but also focus on
peaceful conflict resolution and "community healing".
Activists from these strands participated in the national "Unity for Peace" conference in Melbourne on May 27, but a messy and incomplete final session did little to suggest that there was any agreement on a clearly delineated strategy, with Iraq, Iran, nuclear power, racism and other issues all vying for attention.
A unified peace movement can be built only around one major concern at a time. Strong coalitions with mass activism (rather than lists of endorsers with little financial or membership muscle) arise at those junctures where significant forces, in conjunction with rising public concern, elevate one issue to such a level of importance that they are collectively willing to put to one side their usual priorities in
order to maximise resources devoted to making a breakthrough on the "big issue" of the day.
This can be seen in the rise and fall of the Vietnam campaign 1968-71, of the Movement Against Uranium Mining 1976-79, People for Nuclear Disarmament in the early '80s, and in the
mass mobilisation around Iraq in 2002-03.
As the urgency of the one "big issue" fades, the myriad of
organisations and activists return the energy they had committed — for example, to Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 — to their regular day-by-day peace campaign priorities, whether that be church concern with weapons and militarism, the various regional issues of solidarity groups including the Pacific, nuclear campaigns and so on.
Priorities vary, and one united peace movement is simply not always possible.
But PM John Howard's sudden conversion on the wisdom of nuclear energy (the sniff of uranium export dollars from Asia, and the word from George over dinner) has put the nuclear debate centre stage. Many Australians already have strong feelings on the issue, emanating from long and patient work by anti-nuclear campaigners over three decades.
There is already a very public debate, but there is a need for broad community education — especially about the nuclear industry's claims to economic viability and greenhouse credentials — across our towns and suburbs, from church halls and local peace groups to trade union meetings, local government bodies and the branches of political parties.
The major peace/green organisations — including Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and the Greens — are mobilising significant resources in the public contest. Howard and business are strongly pushing the nuclear power industry, while both federal Labor leader Kim Beazley and the union bosses have come out against it, though shadow ministers such as Martin Ferguson are pushing an extension of the uranium mining sector.
A key question is whether the ALP/union opposition will be a meek whisper (as it was on Iraq), or whether they will put real effort into educating and mobilising their members on nuclear power and uranium; and what can be done to encourage them to act with strength and determination.
The task for the anti-intervention strand of the peace movement is to make itself relevant to the debate, to consider ways in which in could be a useful partner in the public discussion. Can it play a role in helping transform the ALP's and union's public position into more concrete action and engagement across the labour movement and the broader community? Or will it sit on the sidelines waving flags?
The urgent need is to build a broader engagement on nuclear issues, including in the lead-up to Hiroshima Day on August 6.
The public gaze on nuclear issues extends to Iran, which is
developing a nuclear technology industry, and possibly nuclear
weapons 15-20 years into the future. This has sent the existing oligarchy of nuclear weapon powers into apoplexy, with Iran's large oil reserves energising their concern.
The mobilisation of the so-called "international community" against Iran hides the extent to which the United States is moving to ditch the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — rewarding allies like India, which has refused to sign the NPT, but punishing official enemies like Iran and North
Korea.
US President George Bush is planning to bomb Iran, and he probably will before November in a desperate attempt to stave off a massive Republican defeat in the US mid-term Congressional elections at year's end. It's either that or admit a colossal error over Iraq, sack Rumsfeld and Cheney, apologise a thousand times and be born again (again) as the man of Middle East peace, which seems less than a reasonable bet.
Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector and intelligence insider, says that "based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran"; the only outstanding issue is whether the weapons will be nuclear or conventional.
Any US attack on Iran will almost certainly make use of signals intelligence provided by the Pine Gap Joint Defence Facility at Alice Springs, and Australian naval forces in the Persian Gulf may also be involved. Howard is refusing to say what he will do which, like the lead-up to the war on Iraq, means yes.
The ALP's Kevin Rudd says: "We do not support resorting to a military option."
Our message can be simple and effective in drawing the links between the nuclear debate in Australia and the threat to Iran: "John Howard wants an Australian nuclear industry, but he supports George Bush's plan to bomb Iran because ... it wants an Iranian nuclear industry."
Like the nuclear debate, there will be a clear difference at a
national level on Iran. Will the ALP, as on Iraq, set a policy and then sit on its hands? And how can we help to energise Labor's opposition to war on Iran as well as its opposition to nuclear power in Australia?
[David Spratt is a long-time anti-war activist and helped organise the 2002-2003 protests against the invasion of Iraq. For on-line resources on uranium mining and nuclear power, visit <http://www.acfonline.org.au>, <http:/www.greenpeace.org.au> or <http://www.foe.org.au>. Sign the don't bomb Iran sign-on statement at <http://www.stopiranattack.org>. More don't bomb Iran resources are at <http://www.vicpeace.org/iran>.]
From Green Left Weekly, June 7, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.