The
writer is the founding President of the W. E. B. Du Bois Foundation,
Inc., honoring his stepfather, and a retired Professor in Journalism
and African-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
The
unprecedented victory for the party in power in the recent midterm
elections means war with Iraq is now inevitable - unless an effective,
global no-war-with-Iraq movement emerges. The unexpected unanimity
in the United Nations Security Council vote on the resolution on
Iraq will merely delay that war. The war hawks were not expecting
such unity. People of Color in the Americas and around the world,
understanding better than most the true hegemonic objectives of
the U.S. and the UK and their "war against terrorism,"
have a sacred duty and special responsibility. We must join with
and strengthen the already developing European and domestic movement
against war with Iraq. We must be in the front ranks of that struggle,
and we must be prepared to take over the reins of leadership of
that struggle when the full force of modern day, corporate imperialism
is unleashed on that anti-war movement. It is not a position many
cherish. But, it is the only hope for peace in our time.
The
pro-Bush/Republican Party results of the midterm elections together
with the passage of the Congressional bi-partisan resolution giving
the Administration the right to wage war with Iraq if it so chooses,
has provided the U.S. Administration with all the authority it believes
it needs. It does not matter that well less than half of the eligible
voters in the country bothered to vote in the midterm elections.
It does not matter what the Europeans or anyone else thinks. It
does not matter that the President was compelled to go before the
United Nations by a justifiable domestic fear of the possibility
of "going it alone". Having decided, under pressure, to
take the matter to the United Nations, President Bush proceeded
to scold the world body for failing in its responsibility to force
implementation of a long list of UN resolutions initially formulated
to punish Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait.
In
a demonstration of supreme arrogance Bush insulted UN Secretary
General Kofi Anan and the leadership of the United Nations Organizations
for "not doing their job." Thus, he ended up having to
agree to a resolution far removed from that demanded in his original
presentation. While his address was applauded by U.S. pundits and
government officials alike, the world leaders understood that because
of his threat of U.S. military action made before the United Nations
Organization, whose very reason for being is to maintain peace in
the world, they must act together to stop him.
U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was given the impossible task of
selling the US/UK position to the other thirteen members of the
Security Council. After long and what must have been for Powell
torturous meetings and discussions with the Heads of Delegations
of the rotating members of the Security Council (Bulgaria, Cameroon,
Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore
and Syria) and with France, the Russian Federation, China, and the
U.K, the nations with veto power, they all firmly agreed; they would
vote for a resolution that 1) removed any threat of or automatic
military action in the event of Iraqi resistance and 2) guaranteed
that Hans Blitz, leader of UNMOVIC (the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohammed El Baradei,
of the International Atomic Energy Agency, co-leaders of the inspection
teams, would report back to the UN Security Council in case of a
"material breach" to allow the Security Council to review
the alleged breach and decide on action.
The
composition of the UN Security Council at this juncture is significant:
nine developing (third world) countries of peoples of color, four
developed countries and Singapore (a city-state) and Ireland. In
other words a Security Council overwhelmingly representative of
peoples of color. They must have made it very clear to Colin Powell
that no matter what the US could offer them in the way of money,
arms, diplomatic favor and other bribes in return for their support,
they would vote for peace. So, it was not all just a matter of what
France, China or the Russian Federation would do. Although one would
never know it from the coverage provided by the U.S. media.
As
the inspections take their course without major problems and the
threatening rhetoric continues from the White House, the Pentagon,
and in the media, more and more nations and leaders are clarifying
their position. That position is - any military action against Iraq
must be approved by the United Nations Security Council. While in
the US more and more militaristic news and information of every
variety daily fills the TV, the newspapers and even the National
Public Radio, to prepare the American people for war. This only
reveals the determination of the war hawks to press ahead, regardless
of the United Nations action or what the inspectors find and regardless
of the growing anti-war sentiment domestically and throughout the
world.
At
the same time President Bush repeats over and over that the inspectors
don't have to actually find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"We know that they are there. It is the responsibility of Iraq
to prove to us it has no such weapons or programs to build them."
In other words, Saddam must prove a negative! Despite repeated claims
by the US and the UK that they have concrete evidence of the existence
of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq, that evidence has not
been turned over to the inspection teams as requested. Instead,
with great fanfare, Britain releases a report on and much used video
material of repression in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, most of which
Amnesty International released to the world months and months and
months ago.
A
great challenge faces the American people. An even greater challenge
faces America's peoples of Color, throughout North America, Central
and South America, and the islands of the Seas. We have an opportunity
to join with and help build a peoples, global peace movement. Such
a peoples movement would encourage leaders from around the world,
many of whom have already expressed their opposition to a war with
Iraq, to openly oppose that war, and thus isolate and defeat the
enemies of peace.
David
Graham Du Bois
[email protected]
