it's not only about the war victims.

no justice no peace!

In all television commentaries on peace manifestations I hear demonstrators name the civil victims as their reason to reject this war. They stress that next to precision bombings, other kinds of bombings certainly exist, and so on .. I also hear in comments on Indymedia and during the manifestations that the attacks on police and banks with projectiles ranging from fruit to stones is in contradiction with the concept of a peace manifestation. I would like to react on both in a serious way (sorry).

It is very hopeful to see that almost the entire population does not accept the war victims of capitalism. This means there is a limit for Western consumers. But what if your motivation stops there? Isn't it about more than the blood of war victims? If it isn't, then in a few weeks, when the iraqi regime is replaced by one serving the american capitalist interest, western consumers will be happy again. And what about the precision bombings? Would we still be against this war if none in stead of hundreds of civil deaths would have fallen? If so, we are far from home (at least, my home). Another question: wouldn't we have to agree with the possesion of weapons of mass destruction, observing that North Korea is not being attacked because they have them, contrary to Irak? If it would be about war victims, we would have to agree, wouldn't we?

We are facing a war for resources here, that are now in the hands of Saddam and, depending on his goodwill, may be used for the wellfare of the Iraqi people, with business contracts that aren't serving the US. The war is also used to approve the stock exchange by selling american weapons, for more power in the Middle East in general and to distract the american people from the fundamental problems of their country's policy.
So we attack, take over, convince the opposition politicians with contracts and that's done! The UN is sidetracked because war is waged anyway. The arms inspections were there for the sake of public opinion, now that Iraq has not attacked another country like they did before, to eliminate the few weapons that could still be in Iraq and probably also to spy. France, Germany and co. do not join in and maybe would have liked Saddam to stay in his position for a while (having oil contracts already). So no government cares about the Iraqi people anyway.

Capitalism causes victims every day, not only by bomb shards. Every Chiquita you eat is grown in exploitation and that is what we call social injustice. Every carton of milk is a product of a big industrial producer who bankrupted ten small traditional farmers, as the EU has created a climate where only the industrial ones survive. It is rare that a military coup is needed to preserve the interests of a capitalist power. Usually this is achieved by ordering the government of a country, selling governments a whole bunch of weapons to use against their own people or another country, through the manipulation of the media, through staging some strike, finding a Chilean general for a coup, imposing conditions on loans, through boycotts etcetera … If we don't accept war victims, can we accept everyday life victims of capitalism?

Where the different capitalist powers would usually be cooperating when the SU still existed, now the war between capitalist powers has begun as an extension of the competition between them in general. For the moment the States are the only power with a huge high tech army with bases of mass destruction all over the world. The other ones still use diplomacy only. But capitalist nations want no more nor less than preserving the power of corporations. It's not a consequent ideological struggle: Bush will not be brought to court, there will be no UN resolution against the war crimes the US is commiting now… The EU is starting to feel stronger and competing openly with the US. Because they have the same kinds of capitalist interests, the EU is not opposed to but flirting with the US, exploring their power in order to stabilize an equal position: no second resolution, but yes, logistic support (the free use of military bases, railways and ports). Yes, they want a resolution against Turkish activity in Iraq while omitting to do the same thing against the US, doing the US a double favour. The diplomatic position of the EU seems to be pure hypocrisy, but economic competition has been going on underground for a long time already. The opposition to the US seems to be a way to enforce a European identity, which in fact is just the same capitalism as the US's.

What comes after civil victims? The Iraqi people will have lost all, and I mean all power to decide about their own welfare. While they had already lost most of it under Saddam, they could still count on some policies being economically in function of the country. Within a short period the economy of Iraq will be just a small wheel in the global economic monster and the entire population will see their lives reduced to the oil of the machine, like a lot of people already do.

This is a further reduction of the meaning of human existence.

Meanwhile the other capitalist powers try to use their own populations in their competition struggle (more or less against the US) and they now clearly need a military force for it. If the peace movement does not have stronger motivations than anti-americanism or simply pacifism, easily used to prepare the public opinion for a ‘nationalism', in which the nation is Europe and the leader is the EU. Anti-americanism can simply be used as a distraction and as a way to engage people to sacrifice the third world, European social rights, the social fabric, to change legal and democratic rights of European dissidents to allow repression and criminalization… The aim will be European capitalism and the pacifist feelings can serve to use the United States as the competition and the moral enemy, as a catalyst.

This is why I don't accept the remarks of peace demonstrators who claim the anti-war demonstrations to be pacifist. A lot of participants are only peace-loving if the conditions for peace are also mentioned. As long as the rights of the producer-farmer-worker (fair prices, self-determination of profits) are not globally garanteed and free of the meddling of state and capital, there can only be a superficial and unfair peace. Peace yes, but only when there is justice: no justice, no peace (fuck the corporate police). As long as I don't hear anyone speaking about that I will not accept the anti-war demonstration to be a peace demonstration where throwing a stone at a bank is criticized as ‘contrary to pacifistic aims'.

• For some people this is not a ‘pacifist' manifestation because pacifism wants to be universal, rejecting violence in every situation. Meanwhile:
  • the world is more and more based on shameless, brutal, well-financed violence of the concentrated capital,
  • pacifists who condemn others for breaking the window of a bank or causing some damage to the painting of a corporate police water cannon, don't form any threat to the capitalist power
  • they are easily mobilised or abused to mislead public opinion for the sake of European capital.
• For others this is not a pacifist demonstration but a demo against the violation of the sovereignty of Arab countries and against the ass licking of a lot of Arab governments.
• For those without a voice in Belgian society, this is not a pacifist demonstration but an occasion to make a difference and make the news.

I myself agree with all but don't think all motivations have equally constructive value. In the demo of 22 March in front of the US embassy, all were combined into one force, maybe not making a difference but feeling strong together, and showing that against all this injustice we need to do more than hold a banner.

Through this article I ask respect for the motivation of every anti-war demonstrator and I want to cordially invite all to determine their place in the discussion. Do I support capitalism (in everyday life) and only come out on the streets when it goes too far? Or do I go further than ‘I'm against war because war hurts'? And do I accept the phenomenon of the state? According to communists Saddam, as the leader of a state, has only reacted in a logical way, also in the war against Kuwait (also against the oil field population, the Kurds?). If this is true then I have to reject the phenomenon of the state.
There is never a better breeding ground for nationalism (acceptance and defence of the power of the state or any centralized power structure) than in times of war. The romance of fighting for the fatherland, -region or -union is than easily cultivated by its governers through hate for the enemy. Bush, Saddam, Aznar (anti-ETA), Stalin and other violators of peoples owe their power to it. The powers generate each other also because they supply support when it's in their interest (the power of Saddam is (partly) generated by the US when it was needed against Iran). The romantic feelings for something abstract as nation, union or religion is dangerous because the form diverts attention from the content. As every politician in Europe tries to do this, the most mainstream among them in favour of the power of the EU, all massive protest should be so clearly defined that it can not be recuperated for their aim! But this massive ‘peace movement' can still go in any direction.

If we manage to go a little further and recognize the capitalist American products as part of the problem, we can begin the struggle with a boycott. If we go further still, we can start to avoid all products based on capitalism (that's a serious challenge) and place all protested issues in the same picture… That would be quite an achievement and then I would be able to party for the full 100% once again!

I think this is the time to discuss these issues. Maybe we'll see each other in front of the US embassy and talk. A comment below is also appreciated!

Because I found this debate important, I have translated this article in English. The original in Dutch is also posted and put in the same feature.

Birgit, I agree completely that Anti-War sentiment can be used in a number of ideologically dangerous manners, and also that there is very little -if any point - in being anti-war and pro-capitalism (even if unconsciously or implicitly). One thing that struck me in the M22 protest was that to some people, this was a protest for religious reasons. I don't agree. Others think it is an issue of resisting american-style capitalism. I also disagree. There are many issues that your article evoke.

I am thinking about the direct violent action issue a lot, lately. About hurling rocks against the corporate police vehicles and such. About the "shaking banners will not be enough" argument. I wonder what will be enough. Throwing rocks doesn't seem enough either. Not even symbolically or for a "first step". Throwing rocks can also be done for loads of bad reasons (I'm not implying that that was the case in the march). Fascists and religious zealts also through rocks. Where do you draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate rock-throwing (or bank faccade breaking, or any other number of violent, anti-capitalist actions...)?

I wonder what is your suggestion for ani-war demonstrators that don't have a strong anti-capitalist attitude... Do you want them not to show up at all? Reading your article I get the impression that "they have the wrong motivations" and shouldn't consider themselves pacifists, and shouldn't demonstrate because it would be an act of hypocrisy and short-sightedness. I think this manner of thought helps divide the social movement. For a numer of obvious reasons, these anti-war rallys are NOT anti-capitalist. Perhaps unfortunately, some people still believe in "enlightened or benevolent capitalism" and that "Europe embodies better values than America". In my opinion, they couldn't be farther from the truth, and yet these people also feel the war is wrong, and shouldn't happen. What to do with this correct intuition these people have? Through it out the window, since they don't share your beliefs about the "fundamental causes"?

Some people just hate violence. They can't accept that throwing rocks - or nuclear warheads for the matter - can be a "good thing". These people usually come with a highly developed sensorial system, that allows them to identify violence in the person that throws a rock, but not identify violence in people starving in another part of the world (or of their neighbourhood). They have been educated thus, and despite their misconceptions, they need to be included and not excluded in the debate and in the action. To do that, learning must be gradual. The attitude expressed in your article, despite it's frank search for an open debate, is that these people are wrong, and should think better than toshow up in these protests. I think that is the wrong way to start.

To observer and other interesting thoughts,

I thought it would be clear enough that "it 's hopeful to see that there is a limit for the mayority of the people (let's speak about people in europe and US). "

In first instance I wanted to make clear to the people shocked by the fact that on a antiwar demonstration stones are thrown, that an 'antiwar demonstration' is not a synonime for 'a pacifist demonstration'. It includes pacifism but other motivations are not excluded by the term ANTIWAR.

In a second instance I wanted to start a debate with this people who come to express their rejection of this war, and among all people coming to antiwar demos. I found it a very interesting moment for it. I'm very glad that people who never went to a demo felt the need to come on the streets for this 'going to far'. Maybe they just didn't knew that US could do something like that, since they normally have a better mask on. If all motivations are accepted as existing, than we can discuss them (like I did) and maybe there can be the understanding that all have a logic behind. That would be nice allready.

You don't open a debate with nothing more than an invitation, no, you start the debate by expressing your own opinion with respect for the people that do not share it (or did not knew to share it) inviting them to react.

I disagree with simple pacifism and simple antiamericanism, but I respect the persons that believe in it. The idea is not the same as the person that is occupied by the idea.

I like unity in diversity as long as it doesn't mean that we should all bring the message we have in common and shut up. So I don't find it correct that if you raise your own voice you see that as dividing the peacemovement. Is 'the peacemovement' that weak that it falls apart as soon as anyone starts a discussion out of its own believe? (I don't think so, do you?).

In an antiwar demo people can be there out of pacifism, antimilitarism, antiamericanism, antikapitalism, communism and also anarquism (which is linked with antimilitaristic). See you all!

PS of course I don't think that antiwarpeople that are not anti-capitalist shouldn't be in an antiwardemo and I certainly don't think that they are 'bad pacifists' (like you, Observer, thought I would). I would say that there's a strong probability that they are pacifists. Pacifism means to me: to be in an absolute way against violence. People who are NOT pacifistic can also be in an antiwar demo, because there are other motivations to be anti-this-war. I'm not a pacifist, I'm an antimilitarist, anticapitalist and anarquist.

I hope I made myself clear.

See you all!

(a nice thing to throw at the US Embassy are american products like Coca and PepsiCola with the message:
'we don't want it and we send it back to you! As you go, you can take it with you!' I heard an older man saying it in Brussels M22 while the watercanon was showering the people and while he was looking to the things that were laying all around the cops.)

losers