By KEITH SUTER*
What happens if they give a war and no one turns up? Some Western Governments are trying to whip up public opinion in favour of a war against Iraq, but they are not having much luck.
In Britain, the main supporters for Prime Minister Tony Blair's military ambitions are in the opposition Conservative Party. Many of his Labour Party backbenchers and most of the media are - at the very least - sceptical of the need for a war.
This is not just an issue over Iraq. There has been a major social change in Western countries towards the "peace" issue. During the Cold War peace groups were branded as unpatriotic and "Moscow fronts". Now "peace" is respectable - it can even be displayed on the Sydney Harbour Bridge on New Year's Eve as a greeting to the world.
This helps to explain what has happened to the peace movement in countries like New Zealand and Australia. It seems to have disappeared just when it is needed. Many Governments are gearing up for war against Iraq, but there are not the wide range of peace groups that operated in Cold War years.
Instead, the peace movement has become mainstream, middle-class and middle-of-the-road. It is now respectable and its values permeate all sections of society. There has been a quiet social transformation.
This change in values may be seen in four ways. Most noticeably, there is a lack of support for a war against Iraq. The media and many parts of the public are sceptical.
This is not from any love of Saddam Hussein but from a general sense of combat fatigue. Conventional military operations do not seem to be as effective as in the past.
After all, there was a war against Saddam 11 years ago but that did not solve the problem. And the United States-led operation in Afghanistan has still not brought peace to that country.
Wars do not seem to settle anything; they only lead to fresh wars.
Second, there is increased interest in the roots of war and more imaginative ways of settling disputes. If conventional military forces do not work, what could?
In Afghanistan, for example, imagine what the situation would have been like if the US had poured aid into the country in the late 1980s as the Soviet Union withdrew its forces, so that Afghanistan became a flourishing pro-Western state. That would have prevented any scope for the Taleban and Osama bin Laden to take root.
Third, many of the erstwhile "militaristic" segments of society are less militaristic. Anzac Day memorials are attracting large numbers of people, not least young people. But the activities are not a glorification of war, more a regret at the tragic loss of life.
It seems that the grave loss of life of young people in April 1915 resonates with the fears of young people about their own future and how a group of old men can still ruin lives.
Meanwhile, military institutions are reinventing themselves. For example, the Imperial War Museum in London on Remembrance Day last year hosted the Nobel Peace Prize winner Sir Joseph Rotblat, who spoke on "A world without war. Is it desirable?"
And fourth, in Australia at least, the Defence Force now enjoys the highest level of public support since World War II. In particular, its peacekeeping operation in East Timor is seen by peace activists as redeeming Australia's tarnished image - an image created by pro-Jakarta Australian Governments from that of Gough Whitlam onwards.
Thus, peace activists have had to re-evaluate their own attitudes towards the military and recognise it has an important role in the new era of peacekeeping.
Therefore, there is a greater sense of "peace" among the previously differing segments of society and a greater willingness to work together. The old feuds between "warmongers" and "peaceniks" no longer make sense. The new era of warfare requires new ways of thinking.
Warfare used to be international and conventional. Now, it is increasingly internal and guerrilla. Large fighting formations no longer bring lasting peace (as both the Soviets and the Americans have found in Afghanistan).
Instead, miliary operations have to be seen in the broader context of not only winning the war but also winning the peace. This means co-operating with international relief organisations and non-governmental organisations.
It also means trying to find other ways of settling disputes. We are all "peace activists" now.
* Keith Suter is a professional fellow of the Futures Foundation, Australia.
Change of heart to peaceful solutions
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.