by Barun Mitra
While war brings enormous human tragedy, there are times when it is
necessary as a last step in order to defend freedom and restore peace. This
is where the present anti-war movements have got it completely wrong. The
peace activists are protesting against the war in Iraq. They are concerned
about the possible human sufferings in the event of a war. But it is
perhaps no coincidence that the same activists had hardly shown any concern
for the sufferings of the people living under various brutal regimes like
that of Saddam Hussain. In fact many of the activists seem to rationalise
that these regimes are all products of US and other interventions. And when
the US at last seems to recognise the limitations of realpolitik, and
rectify the mistakes of the Cold War years, it is condemned for being
neo-colonial.
The peace movements have been spectacularly wrong from the days of Neville
Chamberlain’s declaration of "peace in our time" following his meeting with
Hitler. Within months Europe was engulfed in war. Likewise, it could be
argued that the anti-nuclear activists in Europe had only helped prolong
the life of the Soviet empire, by focussing exclusively on disarmament in
the 1970s, while the collapse of the "evil empire" was hastened by its
inability to keep pace with economic and technological progress in the
Western alliance. The military build up under Ronald Reagan may have been
the final straw that broke the camel’s back, and led to the collapse of the
most powerful and oppressive state on earth, without firing a shot. But
this was no thanks to the peace activists. This is perhaps one reason why
western peace movements find few takers in countries which have finally
been liberated from tyrannical rulers.
Even the anti-Vietnam war protests, the most successful of peace movements
that led to the withdrawal of the US forces from Vietnam, did not look
beyond the loss of American lives. The peace movements turned a blind eye
to the brutality that befell people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos following
the US withdrawal. For nearly a decade people risked their lives to take
the boat ride to freedom. And the most preferred destination was the US,
the country that had fought a decade long war in Indo-China. The track
record of peace movements in dealing with recent tragedies that engulfed
countries such as Rwada, Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, Burma, and many others, has
hardly been noteworthy. So it was no coincidence that ordinary Afghans
cheered the arrival of US led forces in Kabul with the fall of the Taliban
regime. And there is every reason to believe Iraqis will welcome the
liberation from three decades of Saddam’s misrule. Saddam was recently
re-elected with almost 100 per cent of votes, there cannot be a better
illustration of the fatal weakness of his regime.
Most importantly, the peace movements have completely misunderstood the
roots of peace and prosperity — freedom. They seem to be oblivious of the
fact that the freedom they enjoy to protest against their own governments
is not available to people in Iraq.
Indeed, the freedom enjoyed by the peace movements in free countries, is
not merely an indication of divided opinion in many of these countries, but
more importantly an indication of the enormous strength of free societies
to absorb such diverse range of views. Even while the activists take to the
streets to protest the war in Iraq, they provide the most vivid
demonstration of the power of freedom.
It is time, therefore, to recognise that aspiration for freedom is
universal. And people in Iraq, and many other Arab and Muslim countries
deserve to enjoy the same freedom that many of us take for granted. If the
peace movements don’t recognise the aspirations the people of Iraq, the
Iraqis will seek to find their own freedom, consigning to the dustbin of
history the peace movements that sought to perpetuate the staus quo.
(The writer is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent think-tank
based in New Delhi)
Regresar a la página principal