The Violation of the Will of the Global Anti-War Movement as a Crime against Peace
by Anthony Alessandrin
In my testimony today, I will attempt to prove that the will of the global anti-war movement, a will that has been clearly and repeatedly made manifest through demonstrations, declarations, petitions, statements, and acts, has been knowingly and purposely violated by the government of the United States and its allies through the perpetration of the war on Iraq and the continuing occupation.
I call upon the jury to recognize this violation as a blatant crime against peace. Furthermore, I call upon you all to recognize and repudiate this violation as what it is: an attempt by the perpetrators of this war to create and maintain a situation in which those millions of people throughout the world who stand in opposition to crimes against peace will be forced to remain effectively voiceless, without institutions that can represent, embody, and enforce their will. It is, in other words, a crucial part of a larger strategy to ensure silence and impunity about the crimes committed, and still being committed, in Iraq, and also to ensure impunity for all future crimes. In the name of the World Tribunal on Iraq, I ask you to render a decision that will help bring to an end this silence and impunity. I want to begin by thanking the organizers of the Istanbul session for asking me to take charge of an impossible task: namely, acting as an advocate for the global anti-war movement. Why impossible? For one thing, there is not one, single "anti-war movement" that speaks at all times and in all places with a single voice; there is, instead, an interconnected network of people's movements throughout the world that have joined together — that is, constituted themselves as a single movement at critical moments — in order to express an absolute opposition to the war against, and continuing occupation of, Iraq. By joining together in this way, the anti-war movement has itself acted as an advocate on behalf of the people of Iraq. It has consistently expressed a refusal to allow the massive violations against the Iraqi people to be committed in their name, and it has expressed also its solidarity with the struggles of the people of Iraq against occupation and for true self-determination. Of the many examples that could be cited of this advocacy, let me present just one. In May 2003, members of a popular committee in Cochabamba, Bolivia, who have been part of a struggle against the Bechtel Corporation over the privatization of water in Bolivia, wrote an open letter to the people of Iraq. Noting that Bechtel had been awarded a contract by the U.S. government to conduct the reconstruction of infrastructure in Iraq, the popular committee of Cochabamba warned of the abuses committed by Bechtel in Bolivia and declared: "We support you in any action to remove Bechtel from your country and to protect yourselves from the abuse they are likely to bring with them." 1 This is one small but moving example of the global anti-war movement's active advocacy on behalf of the people of Iraq. So in this sense, I stand before you as an advocate on behalf of these millions of other advocates, whose will has been systematically and knowingly ignored, thwarted, and, in many cases, violently suppressed by those who have perpetrated and supported this war. The organizers of the World Tribunal on Iraq have grasped an important fact: this task, the task of advocating for the global anti-war movement, which might seem impossible, is at the same time absolutely necessary. I stand before you today, not as a lawyer, nor as an expert on international law or international institutions, but rather as a member of the anti-war movement. In this sense, I might have been seen as something more akin to a witness, one who would be testifying to the violations committed against the anti-war movement by the government of the United States and its allies. However, the organizers have taken the important step of including this testimony regarding the violation of the will of the anti-war movement as part of this larger opening session on violations against international institutions and international law. And so I will attempt to live up to my charge, which is not simply to act as a witness, but to actively advocate for the global anti-war movement. I am here to ask the members of the jury of conscience, my fellow advocates, and all of you gathered here today to join me in this act of advocating for the anti-war movement. What does this mean in practice? Coming at the end of this session, after the members of the jury and the audience have already heard a great deal of important testimony regarding the violations committed by the government of the United States and its allies against international institutions and international law, one of the claims that I will ask you to consider is that through its opposition to the war on Iraq, beginning with the unprecedented global demonstrations on February 15, 2003, the global anti-war movement has in fact constituted itself as an international institution, in a very particular sense of the term. For on that date, one month before the commencement of the attack on Iraq by the U.S. government and its allies, this global movement, which is in fact multi-vocal, multilingual, and in every way multifarious, spoke with a single voice. Millions of people throughout the world, representing the goals and interests of millions more, spoke together, and in the hundreds of different languages that were heard that day, the anti-war movement constituted itself as an international institution designed to state a single word: "NO." No to war! No to occupation! No to injustice! No to the proposed attack on Iraq! I wish to quote at length from my fellow World Tribunal on Iraq organizer Ayça Çubukçu, who presented important testimony regarding the violation of the global anti-war movement at the New York session of the WTI in May 2004. Together with Balam Kenter, she was also responsible for gathering these images of protests from around the world on February 15, 20032. I present these images to the jury and to the audience as just a few of the innumerable images and words that can be presented as clear evidence of the will of the global anti-war movement. To quote from Ayça Çubukçu: New York City: Five hundred thousand. London: seven hundred thousand. Barcelona: two million. Istanbul, Warsaw, Calcutta, Mexico City, San Francisco, Paris, Rome, Cairo. . . Millions of bodies around the world simultaneously took to the streets against the imminent war on Iraq . . . A scream of NO forms a cloud hanging over the earth. We who are here today come from this global anti-war movement. Although we cannot claim to represent it, we are empowered by it. We are not merely an abstract "world public opinion." February 15, 2003 as an expression of the global anti-war movement constituted an unprecedented opposition to war. Unprecedented in history in its scale, global depth, and simultaneity, but also because it was against a war that was yet to unfold. The first bombs dropped on Iraq violated not just the principles expressed textually in law, but also the principles constituted actively in people's protest against this war. The World Tribunal on Iraq emerges from the constitutional moment of the global anti-war movement because there is no official institution of international law that can hold the U.S. and its allies accountable. In 1967, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell and the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre inaugurated the Russell Tribunal, which was to investigate the allegations of war crimes by the U.S. and its allies in Vietnam. In his speech, Sartre said: We are perfectly aware that we have not been given a mandate by anyone; but we took the initiative to meet, and we also know that nobody could have given us a mandate. It is true that our Tribunal is not an institution. But it is not a substitute for any institution already in existence; it is, on the contrary, formed out of a void and for a real need. 3 This quote from Sartre accurately represents the void from which the World Tribunal on Iraq has been called into being. But it also represents the void into which the global anti-war movement stepped on February 15, 2003. By clearly and publicly joining together to express its opposition to the war that was being threatened against the people of Iraq, the global anti-war movement in effect created an entirely new form of international institution. It is an institution that refuses to be institutionalized, refuses to be locked away, refuses to be confined, refuses to be declared out of bounds, and refuses both the torments of the prison camp or the insane asylum and the comforts of the corner office with a view. What the global anti-war movement instituted on February 15, 2003 is no more and no less than the demand for justice without borders, without boundaries, without limits. With the single word, "NO," this movement declared that the war against Iraq, which had not yet been launched, would be absolutely illegitimate, now and forever more. With the single word, "NO," this movement instituted, gave form and substance to, the promise of justice, which, in the words of Ayça Çubukçu, "belongs not to a state, the system of states or to its institutions, but to the people." 4 The official response to this clear expression of the will of the global anti-war movement is best encapsulated by a retort given by President George W. Bush at a press conference held three days after the worldwide demonstrations of February 15, 2003. Asked by a reporter for his response to the huge numbers of people who had turned out to protest against the war, President Bush responded: "Size of protest? It's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, the security of the people." 5 Despite the fact that he invokes "the people" — in this case, of course, the people of the United States — Bush's statement is clear evidence of a knowing and purposeful intent to violate the will of the people of the world any time this will contradicts U.S. government policy in any way. By equating the will of the global anti-war movement with the opinions expressed by "focus groups" — that is, groups used by advertising agencies to help them decide how to best promote and sell cola, cars, and Hollywood movies — Bush makes it clear that he believes that the U.S. government can ignore, suppress, and silence the "NO" that was declared on February 15, 2003 with no consequences, with complete impunity. I ask the members of the jury to show him that he was mistaken, and to declare this violation of the will of the global anti-war movement to be a crime against peace, one for which President Bush and the other perpetrators of the war against Iraq must be held accountable. It must be said that recognizing the violation of the will of the global anti-war movement as a crime against peace is only the first step in initiating the difficult work that lies ahead, which is to hold those who have committed this crime accountable for their actions. It is also to initiate a difficult investigation, looking at, among other things, the relationship between popular movements and international institutions, between people's initiatives and bodies of law, between the poets among us who demand: "Come and see the blood in the street!" and the lawyers and judges and scholars among us who painstakingly document and classify the crimes that spilled this blood into the streets, and who do the crucial work of locating the mechanisms for punishing and preventing such crimes. Where such mechanisms do not yet exist, we must call them into existence, and in this task, the poets and the judges must work together and learn from each other. In conclusion, it may seem that I am asking you, members of the jury, to do something quite obvious and straightforward. Millions of people around the world said no to this war; their will was not heeded by those who carried out this war; therefore, you are seemingly asked to simply take note of and deplore this obvious violation of their will. But by declaring in your findings, clearly and directly, that the violation of the will of the global anti-war movement constitutes a clear and punishable crime against peace, you are doing something absolutely crucial. You are declaring that the "NO" that was declared throughout the world on February 15, 2003, a "NO" that has been repeated innumerable times since then — not simply in the form of protests, but also in the form of letters, petitions, articles, statements, declarations, films, songs, poems, paintings, indeed in countless forms — this "NO" cannot be refused, cannot be rejected, cannot be silenced. You are confirming that the process that was instituted by the global anti-war movement through the declaration of that "NO" is one that continues to this day, and that the proceedings here in Istanbul are just one of the many outcomes of that initial act of refusal. You are declaring, clearly and resoundingly, that the "NO" of the global anti-war movement is one that makes this war, all wars of aggression, all occupations, absolutely illegitimate, now and forever. You are affirming that it should be the goal of all international institutions charged with achieving and maintaining justice and peace to represent, embody, and enforce the will of the global anti-war movement. In short, by confirming that this violation of the will of the global anti-war movement by the perpetrators of this war is a crime against peace for which they must be held accountable, you will take the first step towards ending the state of silence and impunity that these perpetrators have attempted to impose upon us all. This will in turn be a crucial step towards reviving and strengthening the global anti-war movement, indeed all people's movements throughout the world. The perpetrators of this war know that the best way to silence the anti-war movement is to try to convince the millions of people who make up this movement that their voices can be ignored, suppressed, and silenced, and that their will can be violated, with no consequences, with complete impunity. We know also that the best way to strengthen the anti-war movement is to demand that this impunity be brought to an end, and that the violation of the will of the global anti-war movement be seen as what it is: a crime against peace. The promise of justice resides, as it always has, among the people of the world. I call upon the jury and the members of the audience to join with the global anti-war movement to help institute this promise of justice, on behalf of the people of Iraq and on behalf of all victims of wars of aggression and of occupation.
|
