Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen 2001
Austin American-Statesman, November 13, 2001, p. A-15.
by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen
If the antiwar movement is as marginal as some pundits say, why is so much
time spent denouncing it?
As it becomes clearer that this "war on terrorism" won't solve the problem
of terrorism, why so much effort to keep antiwar voices marginal?
To many in the news media, it seems we are damned if we do and damned ifwe
don't. When the antiwar movement agrees on general principles, we arecriticized
for marching in a mindless ideological lockstep. When there ishealthy disagreement
about specific strategies, we are accused of incoherenceand lack of a clear
message.
Although antiwar activists have put forward serious analysis, commentators
prefer to pretend that we offer nothing but slogans. It's as if pundits have
decided to evaluate the movement by looking only at the first and last lines
of speeches, ignoring everything in the middle. The treatment of the fewantiwar
voices on radio and TV reinforces this -- detailed criticisms ofU.S. policy
often get cut off by bellowed expressions of disgust and declarationsof our
irrelevance.
The problem isn't that antiwar activists' feelings are hurt, but rather that
there is little serious coverage of a view held by millions of Americans,
based on historical analysis and widely shared ethical principles.
Antiwar activists, while not a monolith, agree on much:
++The bombing is killing hundreds of innocent civilians directly. It exacerbates
an existing humanitarian crisis by making aid distribution far more difficult.
Millions are at risk; UNICEF has estimated that an extra 100,000 children
may die this winter. These victims had no involvement in the 9-11 attacks,
and killing them is no more justified than killing the people in the World
Trade Center.
++The war violates international law. The United States claims the rightto
attack in self-defense, but that right can be invoked only in responseto
immediate threats of direct attack. Since people currently in Afghanistan
can mount no credible threat to U.S. targets, the U.N. Charter requires that
any use of force be under the auspices of the Security Council.
++The bombing is unlikely to harm Osama bin Laden and other important members
of al-Qaeda, who went to ground long before it started. It is dramatically
less effective in apprehending or eliminating such people than the ongoing
criminal investigation. The war also breeds further terrorist attacks byarousing
the anger of the entire Islamic world.
There is also clear agreement on some components of a solution:
++There must be an international investigation based on genuine international
cooperation, not on U.S. browbeating or bribing of other countries. People
involved should be tried for crimes against humanity. Any settlement in Afghanistan
should be under U.N. auspices, with participation from as many sectors of
Afghan society as possible.
++The root causes of terrorism must be addressed. Nobody wants to appease
terrorists or negotiate with them. But we must address the anger among ordinary
people in the Islamic world over the sanctions on Iraq, which have killed
over 1 million people; U.S. support for Israel's occupation of Palestine,
enforced by attacks on civilians with tanks, helicopter gunships and F-16s;
and the U.S. military presence in the Gulf and a long record of support for
corrupt, theocratic, feudal and absolutist states.
Few in the Arab and Muslim world consider those to be reasons to attack Americans,
but that anger provides a source of recruits to terrorist ranks and cover
for existing terrorists. To root them out, the active cooperation of thepeople
-- not just governments -- is necessary, and that cooperation requirespolicy
changes.
Last month we wrote about this emerging analysis, noting that work was needed
to forge different components of a solution into a compelling overall framework.
This was quoted in some newspapers to suggest that the antiwar movement thinks
it has no clear message. In fact, it was part of the process of self-critical,
reasoned dialogue necessary to shape an analysis.
These attacks on the antiwar movement hint at a bias; no one suggests that
the often-heard claim that "war is the only way to deal with terrorists"is
unsophisticated, nor do disagreements on strategy among people supporting
the war become evidence that the argument for war is incoherent.
One wonders whether the misrepresentation of antiwar views suggests thatproponents
of war are not so sure about their own analysis.
Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Board of Peace Action. RobertJensen
is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin.Both are
members of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com). Jensenis author
of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from theMargins tothe Mainstream
(www.peterlangusa.com). He can
be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.