Peaceniks & Double Standards
written by Kevin Summers, February 2003
Michael Scammell (The Age, Opinion, Jan 31) accuses local anti-war activists of
engaging in dubious tactics to further their cause. He narrows their
handiwork down to five nasty tactics to impede George Bush’s engagement with Iraq. His critique, however, fails to construct a coherent case.
Tactic 1: The movement “signs up” soapie stars and other celebrities to
voice pacific sentiments. Scammell seems to regard the anti-war forces as a single, solid entity - the movement - rather than a loose and disparate collection of people. It’s a tired ploy, to portray them as a solid mass, thus conferring upon them a sinister edge.
Moreover, the performers are simply entering into public discourse, as
befits any thinking person. It is not uncommon for them to be labelled as blow-waved poseurs, in much the same way as academics are derided as
eggheads. Does Scammell want them to disqualify themselves from debate
because of the nature of their careers? Should we leave discussion to
politicians, journalists and radio shock jocks?
Tactic 2: Another “signing up” allegation, only this time the Big One - God. Scammell maintains that while leftist church folk deride America’s
invocation of having God on its side, they nonetheless maintain the high
moral ground in proclaiming their religiosity. Perhaps he expects them to turn atheistic in order to criticise Bush’s constant refrain that the
Almighty is in his corner, giving instructions.
Another point here. While war mongers tend to invoke God as a means of
justification, they seldom appeal to Jesus Christ. He doesn’t quite fit in, at the head of a strike force, what with those notions of peace, charity and brotherhood. Best put him to one side.
Tactic 3: In a PR war, says Scammell, truth is the first casualty and the devious peaceniks (nice epithet, that) are guilty of selective memory syndrome. He knows this because they criticise Bush’s plan but don’t have a plan of their own. Certainly George Bush’s plan - to drop a lot of bombs on the Iraqi populace - is well known. One would have thought that the alternative to war - the continuation of the United Nations sponsored inspections - actually entailed a plan.
Tactic 4: Scammell alleges that the anti-war movement (again, he portrays it as a homogeneous mass) has pushed the one simplistic line: that the US position is based on a ruthless grab for oil. Where’s his evidence for this statement? There is much intense speculation on what drives Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and not all of it comes from peace groups. It may have to do with oil, the future of Israel under Sharon, the Kurds and Turkey, or a push for democracy in the Arab kingdoms. It may be an ignorant White House striking out in blind fear following September 11. To lay this charge of myopia is facile in the extreme.
Tactic 5: Those politicians proposing peace are given a serve; they are
using war to bolster their political credibility. Well, no, Michael. Using war to assist one’s popularity - imagine how Bush would be regarded if judged on his handling of domestic matters, especially the sagging economy - is very different from opposing a pre-emptive attack on another state. Does he seriously entertain the notion that Carmen Lawrence, having just consigned herself to the backbench, is now using the Iraq situation to bolster her Labor powerbase?
It appears that Bush, Blair and Howard have misjudged the political maturity of their citizenry. Banging the war drum has historically been a safe bet - unless the war goes wrong. In 1966 Labor Leader Arthur Calwell, in opposing Australia’s foray in Vietnam, was thrashed by Harold Holt. There were no votes in opposing a well sold war.
While Scammell acknowledges that the White House has recently employed an advertising executive to sell America to the Arab world, he omits to mention that US administrations have spent millions of dollars on public relations, or “tactical manipulation” as Donald Rumsfeld put it last year. Just as Hill and Knowlton sold the Gulf War, the Rendon Group was engaged by the Pentagon to put a gloss on proceedings in Afghanistan.
He claims that anti-war groups are “being dishonest in pretending that they are not doing the same thing.” Sorry? They are providing massive amounts of money to international PR firms to promote the cause of peace? Firstly, they don’t have the funds and secondly they would find the very idea of thought control anathema to their ideals.
Rather than rage at the “peaceniks”, Scammell would do well to consider the July 19, 2001 London meeting of George Bush and Tony Blair. At their joint press conference they tackled the major issues of the day: free trade, the Russian economy, the Balkans situation, even stem cell research. They didn't mention Saddam or weapons of mass destruction. They have not, they seemingly cannot, explain what was of little import then requires now the deployment of massive force and attendant loss of life.
Home