Prime time war

But even the pyrotechnics, dazzling though they are, the tactical jargon (‘shock and awe’) and the slogans (‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’) cannot disguise the fact that what we are is guests at a public lynching. It is to say the very least, indecent.

But we already know that there is nothing decent about this ‘war’. Much has been written and said about the hypocrisy, opportunism and double standards that have characterised the US establishment’s arguments and its possible motives. The problem is not one so much of awareness but of helplessness.

When the largest global civilian protest of our times and opposition from various countries round the world, including members of the UN’s Security Council, cannot make a dent in the plans of the ‘coalition’, then it appears that democracy is indeed in peril, not just in Iraq but all over the world. Bush and Blair may have the backing of a majority of their people but surely opposition on this scale demands at the very least, dialogue, discussion, explanation?

That none of these have been forthcoming has created a situation of the oddest disconnect. On the one hand you have an increasingly well informed, mass of global citizens united by a common, humanitarian concern and on the other, unresponsive leaders and a media willing to lend itself to the establishment’s cause.

The pundits who predicted that better communications would give a greater voice to the people were wrong. In a wired world people appear to be vividly powerless. Why are things turning out this way? How is it that a hugely swelling tide of people demonstrating in various parts of the free world cannot make the slightest difference to the actions they are opposing? Could it be that the methods they are employing are the wrong ones? So far the efforts of anti-war demonstrators have been geared towards protest. They have tried all sorts of methods from heckling leaders, throwing red paint to storming parliament. If these have not worked it is possibly because they are up against an equally strong belief or interests that override any sense of dishonour that might arise out of being the target of such protests.

The other likely explanation of course is that the US president expects to ride out the storm with an effective, low casualty invasion. Though, none of his promised ‘successes’ have so far materialised (CIA information did not enable the invaders to ‘decapitate’ Saddam Hussein; nor have we seen eager Iraqis rushing out yet to greet the ‘liberators’), it is very likely that a post war scenario with talk of restoration of freedom and humanitarian aid would overwhelm liberal opposition as we witnessed in Afghanistan not so long ago. Were this to happen it would mean a triumph for unilateralism. It would also mean, more seriously, the failure of people to influence their leaders, a chillingly dangerous precedent in a free world.

How can the trend be reversed? How can the people regain their legitimate power? If one were to take a leaf out of the book of one of the greatest mass mobilisers, Gandhi, then the answer perhaps lies in shifting from protest to self renunciation.

To refuse to enjoy the spoils of this conflict however high-minded they are made to seem would be one way. Second, if critics of US policy are right in alleging that commercial interests are at the heart of the war gameplan then financial loss should perhaps be the focus rather than a call to the conscience. Some efforts are already in evidence.

Entrepreneurs from the Arab world for instance, have come out with a range of colas as an alternative to the US behemoths. Actress Susan Sarandon arrived at the Oscars in a gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle to show her lack of dependence on foreign oil. It isn’t as hard as it sounds. For a start you could just turn off that TV set.