Anti-war anger in the heartland
By Barry Sheppard
"One, two, three four! We don't want your racist war!", was the shout that greeted US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as she took the podium to defend Washington's policy before what was supposed to be a choreographed "town meeting" to build support for war against Iraq.
Albright, defence (sic) secretary William Cohen and national security adviser Samuel Berger came to Ohio State University on February 18 to read statements and answer questions from a crowd estimated between 3000 and 6000.
They sought to show support from "America's heartland", but instead got a black eye, and the whole thing was televised live throughout the world by CNN, complete with commercial breaks and anchors shouting down protesters.
One demonstrator who was ejected from the auditorium managed to get back in and deliver a statement that United Press International (UPI) reports was "greeted with thunderous applause". He said, "This is not an open forum, it is a media event staged by CNN".
Earlier, a State Department spokesperson, James Foley, denied that the CNN broadcast was "in any way an infomercial". "But", said UPI, "negotiations with CNN preceding the town meeting, in which the Clinton administration agreed to grant the television network exclusive rights to much of the 90-minute broadcast, undermined Foley's assertions".
There were two classes of tickets. Only those with special tickets (military, university officials) were to be allowed to ask questions. Only the chanting and protesting in the segregated "public" section forced CNN and the administration hacks to allow some people there access to the mikes. Albright et al were unprepared for critical questions.
The New York Times reported, "The Clinton administration rolled out its big guns here today ... to make its case on Iraq, but the three top foreign policy officials were greeted with tough questions, catcalls and a lot of anxiety about American goals".
Some of the questions asked were the following, as transcribed by the Federal News Service:
"The American administration has the might and the means to attack the Iraqi state, but does it have the moral right to attack the Iraqi nation? [Cheers, applause.]"
"This administration has raised concerns about Iraq's threats to its neighbours, yet none of these neighbours seems threatened ... Furthermore, the international community has been opposed to the bombings. If nobody's asking us for their help, how can you justify further US aggression in the region? [Applause, shouts.]"
"President Carter ... was quoted yesterday as saying that up to 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians could be killed. Is that something, Secretary Albright, [shouts, applause] that you think is a realistic possibility?" Albright then dodges the question, saying that if civilians are killed, the fault will be Saddam Hussein's.
"Why bomb Iraq, when other countries have committed similar violations? ... For example, Turkey has bombed Kurdish citizens. Saudi Arabia has tortured political and religious dissidents. Why does the US apply different standards of justice to these countries? [Cheers, applause.]" Albright answers that Hussein is different.
The same questioner asks, "What do you have to say about dictators in countries like Indonesia, who we sell weapons to, yet they are slaughtering people in East Timor? What do you have to say about Israel, who is slaughtering Palestinians, who imposed martial law?"
Albright tried to attack the questioner: "I really am surprised that people feel that it is necessary to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein when what we ought to be thinking about is how to make sure that he does not use weapons of mass destruction".
"I am not defending Saddam Hussein. What I am saying is that there needs to be consistent application of US foreign policy [applause, cheers]. We cannot support people who are committing the same violations because they are political allies. That is not acceptable. We cannot violate UN resolutions when it is convenient to us."
Albright starts to speak, "We do not ...", and the questioner said, "You're not answering my question, Madam Albright [cheers, applause]."
Albright, glaring, tells the questioner she is a professor, and is willing to set him straight in private!
"How can these people sleep at night? We are not going to be able to stop Saddam Hussein. We are not going to be able to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction — all of them. President Clinton admitted it. All he wants to do, Clinton said, was send a message to Saddam Hussein. If he wants to send a message, we, the people of Columbus and central Ohio and all over America will not send messages with the blood of Iraqi men, women and children! If we want to deal with Saddam, we deal with Saddam, not the Iraqi people! [Cheers, applause, shouting.]"
Of course, there were questions and statements made more friendly to the government, but even these were couched with anxiety.
The New York Times editorialised: "There were moments during the 90-minute town meeting in the Ohio State basketball arena that were eerily reminiscent of the protests and passions generated by the Vietnam War. Opponents of a military strike, when they got their moment at the microphone, complained angrily about American aggression overseas. Those who favor attacking Iraq said Washington should not settle for air strikes but should march to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power."
But there lies the rub. Marching into Baghdad is not so simple. It would entail many more US casualties than air strikes would, and would require a long US occupation of Iraq. That would inflame anti-war sentiment in the US. Already, a CNN poll shows the US people split 50-50 over the war. And it would inflame anti-US sentiment abroad, especially in the Arab world.
Scattered protests have begun in many cities across the US. A coalition of groups has called for national demonstrations on February 28 in New York and San Francisco. This coalition was initiated by the Workers World party.
Another coalition in San Francisco, initiated by Socialist Action, called a demonstration on February 21, and has also endorsed the February 28 action. Solidarity is attempting to get the two coalitions together.