The Anti-War Movement as an alibi to justify unpopular policies or for handing over power to the international institutions. In fact it is they who dominate third world countries, through the process of glo- balisation and the opportunities this gives them. Nor has globalisation overcome the capitalist drive to crisis. The Mexican crisis in 1994, the crisis in South Asia in 1997, the Brazilian crisis of 1999 followed by Argentina, are testi- mony to that. These events exploded the delusion promoted by imperialism that the countries of the third world could pull themselves up in the globalised, free market economy, if they adopted the IMF/World Bank/ WTO/US model. In fact the process of globalisation exacerbates the contra- dictions of the capitalist system, increasing its instability, rather than stabilising it. This is reflected in the problems of reconstruction in Iraq. Economically the USA is in a very different position than it was when it launched the Marshall Plan for Europe after World War Two. Today the US has a budget deficit of 460 billion dollars. Global Opposition The other problem they have is the rise in opposition to the process of globalisation which first emerged in 1994 with the Zapatista revolt, was reflected in Europe in the European Marches and then burst out with the Battle of Seattle in 1999. An international movement emerged in Britain Karen O'Toole discusses the huge political impact of the anti-war movement in Britain, but warns of the need for a greater democracy if this success is to continue. The anti-war movement today has many similarities with the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign of the late 1960s and early 1970s; its anti-imperialist politics, its radicalisation of a new generation and the sophistication and ease with within months. What followed was a series of mobilisa- tions which were met by increasing violence from the state forces as the size and combativity of the demonstrations escalated. Then there was the worldwide response to the invasion of Iraq itself. We saw a completely unprecedented anti-war movement on a global scale which brought tens of millions onto the streets. Even in the USA where public support for the war was at its strongest, we saw demonstrations of hundreds of thousands. This world movement merged with the anti-capitalist/anti-globalisation movement and resulted in the most radical political developments since the 1970s. It is this great movement which is behind the increasing unpopularity of Bush and the crisis faced today by new Labour in Britain. It is what makes the Hutton inquiry so dangerous for Blair. In a BBC poll at the end of August 67% of those phoning in thought that the government had misled the country over the war. On top of this the war in Iraq is not over but is intensifying by the day. These are the factors which keep the Stop the War movement in Britain at such a continuing high level of mobilisation and show its continued importance. which it has linked up with the anti-capitalist forces. But one of the most significant differences is, that the Stop the War Coalition is far bigger and more international than its historical predecessors. Because of Blair's special relationship with Bush, Britain has been at the forefront of the global anti-war movement. Had this not been so powerful, the crisis of Blair today would not be so advanced. Many mainstream commen- tators now believe that his time is up, and Alistair Camp- bell's departure is a sign of Blair's isolation within the party itself. The renewed confidence of the left within the Labour Party and the unions are a testament to the pressure of the anger on the streets. The Hutton Inquiry has exposed the lengths the Blair gov-
1U Focialist Outlook autumn, 2003 issue_001 ernment was prepared to go to cover up their lies; scape- goating Dr. David Kelly and wire tapping the BBC to find out who their source was. None of this could have occurred without the anti-war movement, which, keeping its formal demands minimal, has acted as a catalyst for many strands of opinion, including the anti-capitalist forces, peace cam- paigners, trade unionists, and many others. The birth of a new movement Ten days after the attacks on the twin towers in 2001, over two thousand people assembled in London to voice their opposition to any military retaliation. The meeting attracted so many people that two overspill rooms had to be utilised, and still people stood outside on the street to hear the speakers who were being shuffled from one room to the next in relays. The meeting was not called by a coalition, it was organ- ised by the SWP, and addressed by many figures from the labour left, such as Tony Benn and from the anti-capitalist movement, such as writer George Monbiot. This meeting was the birthplace of the Stop the War Coalition. Traditionally the forces behind the anti-war or peace move- ments in Britain were the left of the Labour Party, and the Communist Party. Blair's total support for Bush, his attack on democracy in the party and the general decline of the left at the grassroots, meant that labour activists were in no position to organise such a mass movement. Similarly, the Communist Party, after the collapse of Stalinism has seen a decline of active forces. The way was left open to newer forces, such as the SWP to set up, lead and shape the movement politically. For the first time since the 1930s revolutionaries are at the head of a mass movement. But it is also characterised by the inclu- sion of a number of new, left wing trade union leaders, such as Bob Crow, Mick Rix, Paul Mackney and Mark Serwotka, openly critical of the government's war drive, who were prepared to speak out against the policy. It is a dynamic, inclusive and political campaign, not afraid to take a radical stance such as encouraging political strikes over the war, and school walkouts by young students. The mood at that first meeting was angry. This reflected the general radicalism of the anti-capitalist and anti-glo- balisation demonstrations of Seattle, and especially of Genoa. Activists were still reeling from the state murder of Carlo Giuliani, and accusations from Burlusconi that anti- G8 demonstrators were all terrorists. The equation of anti- capitalists with the events of 9/11 created an immediate impact for people only two months after the G8. The Anti-War Coalition The Stop the War Coalition has proved to be an extremely durable weapon of the anti-war movement here in Britain. Together with CND, and the Muslim Association of Britain, (MAB) and other groups such as the Socialist Alliance, a broad alliance has been formed which has made it very difficult for the Blair gang to divide. At its first conference soon after 9/11 a spirited debate took place over whether the left should work with Muslims. Some organisations, such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty, argued that it would be unprincipled to work with religious groups who held backward political ideas. This led to a decision to keep the demands of the coalition very simple; Stop the War, Oppose the Racist Backlash and Defend Civil Liberties, and a rejection of the idea that Muslims should be excluded from the movement. This has withstood the test of time, proving those arguing against it wrong. If the argument to exclude Muslims had been accepted it would have led to smaller demonstrations (the MAB mobilised thousands through the mosques), and to a separate Muslim anti-war movement. It would have also made it impossible for the existing left to develop a political relationship with Muslims, leaving the movement narrower than necessary and overwhelmingly white. From a demonstration of 60,000 called by CND in October 2001 against an invasion of Afghanistan to the internation- ally co-ordinated 15 February day of action against war in Iraq, the Coalition has gone from strength to strength. Over 1.5 million people were on the streets of London in February, and in cities across the world huge numbers expressed their anger at Bush and Blair's intention to attack Iraq. Even after the war started the demonstration on March 22 in London had half a million people on it. The February demonstration was the biggest ever organ- ised in Britain. At this high point it was clear that the anti- war movement had the support of the majority of the pop- ulation. The political consequences of all this are clear: a deep crisis in Blair's government, a strengthening of the left in the Labour Party and the trade unions, a whole new gener- ation of young (and not so young) people educated on the role of imperialism and, perhaps most potently of all, an understanding of the power of a mass movement when it moves. The Stop the War Coalition is still organising, both in the localities and on its steering committee. There is a further demonstration on 27 September calling for an End to the Occupation of Iraq. Judging by the one thousand, two hundred people who attended the 31 August Peoples' Assembly, the demonstration will be well attended, if not as massive as those before and during the war. The Future Bush's new imperialist policies mean that, while the war coalition is bogged down in Iraq at present, future inva- sions, including attempts at 'war lite', which signally failed in Iraq, may be attempted. This means that the Stop the War Coalition should continue on the basis of, and with slogans against, imperialism's adventures. There can be no doubting the extraordinary success of the anti-war coalition in Britain. The biggest demonstration ever seen in Britain, strikes and more or less self-organ- ised school walk outs, the young profile of the people who gathered in Parliament Square on the day war broke out, the international co-ordination - all have been startling and impressive. However, while the SWP, in leading the Coalition have