The anti-war movement might have gotten a boost last week when
David Kay, the former weapons expert in Iraq, said there were no
weapons of mass destruction in the country.
“David Kay said that we were almost all wrong in
predicting weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the peace
movement was saying over a year ago that there were no such
weapons,” said Jason Fults, office manager at Student
Environmental Action Coalition, an anti-war organization.
“The movement is really owed some respect for recognizing
that fact, and standing up for it,” he added.
Many experts say Kay’s announcement will reinforce the
peace movement, giving it more validity.
However, others point to different statements made in
Kay’s speech, which in effect also validate the decision to
go to war against Iraq.
“Kay’s revised statement said that there was a lot
of potential to develop the weapons at any time. Even though no
weapons were found, it was no reason to believe they will not be
developed,” said David Daniel Bogumil, a UCLA assistant
professor of sociology.
Some academics who study political movements are divided in
determining the impact Kay’s controversial speech could have
on the anti-war effort.
Impact of Kay’s speech
Kay’s speech is believed by many activists as having put
the anti-war movement back on the national agenda.
John Beacham, an organizer at Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
or ANSWER, said he thinks Kay’s speech will provide the
respect and recognition his movement deserves. ANSWER is dedicated
to ending the U.S. presence in Iraq.
“It definitely adds more validity, we were right, and
there has definitely been an increase in interest since Kay has
made his statement,” Beacham said.
Bills Dobbs, a spokesperson for United Peace and Justice, an
organization also dedicated to ending the U.S. presence in Iraq,
said Kay’s revelation confirms facts that those advocating
against the war had already known.
“The anti-war movement is being proved correct, and an
increasing number of people are questioning Bush’s policies
and whether we should have staged a preemptive strike on
Iraq,” Dobbs added.
However, not all experts agree that Kay’s speech will
provide validity and respect to anti-war groups.
“This announcement will not particularly reenergize the
peace movement, with people focusing more on electoral strategy
before the upcoming elections,” said David Walls, a sociology
professor at Sonoma State University.
Furthermore, he added that Kay’s announcement will not do
much in revamping an anti-war movement already weakened by a lack
of interest in recent months, coupled with a decline in social
activism.
Social activism
The anti-war movement was widely active in the United States
during 2003, culminating in a worldwide protest on March 20.
Even with the high levels of activity, one of the facts many
members of the anti-war movement do agree on is the difficulties
plaguing social activism, especially the anti-war movement, in the
United States.
“The anti-war movement in the rest of the world is common,
but in the U.S. it is a struggle to get the movement going,”
Beacham said.
In fact, American social movements peaked in the 1960s and
1970s, due to mass-organized student protests, with social activism
steadily declining since.
“Many people in the ’70s questioned American values;
they had a counter culture. It doesn’t seem as common to
question our society values today. I don’t see that level of
outrage right now as in the past,” Dobbs said.
Beacham said this break from the past might be due to the fact
that in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a military draft, something
many people were opposed to. But today, military service is largely
voluntary.
“But we still need more students. The student movement did
not get going in the same way now as it did in the past,”
Beacham added.
Some say social activism in the United States is still very
high.
Fults said interest and participation in social movement in the
United States, especially among students, is actually increasing,
though he said it is being made to look insignificant.
“The U.S. has a very thriving civil society, but we have
the largest wealth divide in the world, and so it makes sense the
mainstream media will be more interested in reporting on the recent
celebrity scandal then social justice,” Fults added.
Another view
With opinions differing regarding the impact Kay’s speech
had on anti-war organizations, a third school of thought has
emerged.
People who held a particular view about the war stood by it
after Kay’s announcement, using his speech to validate their
respective points of view.
“It is being used as a political football. If you
don’t like the president then you will find fault with him.
If you believe his remarks were related to the general situation in
the world, then you will find it quite reasonable,” Bogumil
said.
He added that either point can be made, since it is mostly a
matter of rhetoric or politics and not of hard facts.
“Some say the world is a safer place with Saddam gone, no
matter if he had weapons or not … But on the other hand can we
impose our views of western democracies upon people who may not be
in agreement with them?” Bogumil said.
Tracy DiMambro, coordinator for the Student Peace Action
Network, a grass roots network of students and youth opposing the
war, also said Kay’s speech will be taken personally by the
public.
“I think it is one element. There’s other elements,
like the downtrodden economy, some people may really take to
that,” DiMambro said.
“I feel like each of these issues are seeds and some
people really grow with certain seeds and not others,” she
added.