Demonstration Issues
It's common for there to be lots of speakers at these demonstrations. Presumably the idea is to offer a platform to many different groups and many voices. I personally find that this tends to make the rallies somewhat boring, as the speeches typically have a lot of overlap, and more ideology and commitment than information and concrete suggestions.
The demonstration on Sunday was no exception in the number of speakers, but this time the speeches seemed to be more diverse than before - at least judging by the number of speakers I disagreed with. I was glad to hear people promoting the motion to impeach Blair, and call for him to be brought on trial for war crimes. The practical emphasis on next year's elections and on building demonstrations was also useful.
I'm happy that families of British soldiers killed in Iraq spoke there, though they were unsurprisingly among the ones I disagreed with, on the issue of "serving honorably": I find little honor in signing off one's morals to the state in blind obedience. But I was more disturbed by the few speakers who wanted to identify (and us to identify) with the Iraqi armed resistance.
Like Palestinians, Iraqis have a right to resist colonial occupation, including by force of arms. And I think that, unlike in Palestine, armed resistance is a major factor in defeating the occupation of Iraq. But the resistance consists of a number of divergent groups of which some legitimately attack the US military (or defend against its attacks), some mostly murder Iraqi and western civilians, and some mix legitimate resistance and terrorism. Standing against the occupiers by unqualifiedly supporting the resistance isn't much of a moral stand.
(These were a few individual speakers. I have found the stand of the Stop the War Coalition itself generally quite agreeable. However, the StWC has also stated that it "reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends". They have now removed the "by whatever means they find necessary" from the statement on their website.)
But, apart from the appalling morality, what is the point of verbally identifying with the armed resistance? Campaigning to get Blair out of office by impeaching him or getting people to vote helps the situation in Iraq. Building links with and giving practical aid to Iraqi trade unions helps the situation in Iraq. Appealing to British soldiers not to take part in the occupation helps the situation in Iraq. How does verbal support of the armed resistance help anything? Even if you thought it was a good idea to help the armed struggle, the speakers weren't actually proposing to send money or supplies (much less to go and fight), so what's the use of such empty demonstrations of support?
The demonstration on Sunday was no exception in the number of speakers, but this time the speeches seemed to be more diverse than before - at least judging by the number of speakers I disagreed with. I was glad to hear people promoting the motion to impeach Blair, and call for him to be brought on trial for war crimes. The practical emphasis on next year's elections and on building demonstrations was also useful.
I'm happy that families of British soldiers killed in Iraq spoke there, though they were unsurprisingly among the ones I disagreed with, on the issue of "serving honorably": I find little honor in signing off one's morals to the state in blind obedience. But I was more disturbed by the few speakers who wanted to identify (and us to identify) with the Iraqi armed resistance.
Like Palestinians, Iraqis have a right to resist colonial occupation, including by force of arms. And I think that, unlike in Palestine, armed resistance is a major factor in defeating the occupation of Iraq. But the resistance consists of a number of divergent groups of which some legitimately attack the US military (or defend against its attacks), some mostly murder Iraqi and western civilians, and some mix legitimate resistance and terrorism. Standing against the occupiers by unqualifiedly supporting the resistance isn't much of a moral stand.
(These were a few individual speakers. I have found the stand of the Stop the War Coalition itself generally quite agreeable. However, the StWC has also stated that it "reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends". They have now removed the "by whatever means they find necessary" from the statement on their website.)
But, apart from the appalling morality, what is the point of verbally identifying with the armed resistance? Campaigning to get Blair out of office by impeaching him or getting people to vote helps the situation in Iraq. Building links with and giving practical aid to Iraqi trade unions helps the situation in Iraq. Appealing to British soldiers not to take part in the occupation helps the situation in Iraq. How does verbal support of the armed resistance help anything? Even if you thought it was a good idea to help the armed struggle, the speakers weren't actually proposing to send money or supplies (much less to go and fight), so what's the use of such empty demonstrations of support?
posted by Syksy at 22:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home