Thousands rally on National Mall
Protesters urge halt to funding
 With the Capitol as a backdrop, demonstrators listened to speakers against the Iraq war. (AP Photo) |
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 28, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Tens of thousands of demonstrators -- Iraq veterans, movie stars, and citizens from all walks of life -- converged on the National Mall yesterday to demand that Congress act to end the Iraq war, in an event organizers hailed as the largest antiwar protest since the US invasion in 2003.
Chanting "peace, salaam, shalom," and carrying placards declaring "Congress Inaction is Immoral" and "The Surge is a Lie," the crowds gathered in the shadow of the US Capitol to hear a broad range of activists from actress Jane Fonda to a 12-year-old Massachusetts girl plead for an end to US military involvement in Iraq.
"Our presence here today is intended to stop the funding for the war," said Norm Mazer , an associate professor at Boston University Medical School, who was among several busloads of Massachusetts residents who traveled to Washington overnight Friday. "I felt it was time to exercise my right as a citizen to say no more to this war."
The rally occurred at a critical time in the four-year-old conflict: President Bush faces a political battle with newly empowered Democrats -- and some Republicans -- over his plan to send 21,500 more troops to quell rising sectarian violence. Meanwhile, public opposition to the war is growing and Bush's popularity is languishing, two factors that helped Democrats gain control of Congress.
This week, lawmakers are expected to vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's escalation of the war, even though the president said the action is necessary to bring Iraq back from the brink of civil war. Although a few lawmakers want to cut off funds to stop the war, party leaders have said they won't take that step -- even though it helped end the Vietnam War -- for fear of being viewed as abandoning the troops in the field.
"We need to give the Congress the courage to do more than symbolic things," said actor and peace activist Tim Robbins as he waited for his turn on the stage, which featured a flag-draped casket symbolizing the more than 3,000 US troops who have lost their lives.
"Congress has to take control of this government," added actress Rhea Perlman , of the TV series "Cheers." She said voters "spoke in November. We have to settle this conflict some other way."
Yesterday's demonstration -- organized by such liberal and antiwar groups as United for Peace and Justice, MoveOn.org, the National Organization for Women, and labor unions -- took place as a bipartisan congressional delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi returned from a trip to assess the situation in Iraq first hand.
In a statement issued yesterday, the delegation insisted that a political solution is the only way to end the violence and thanked US troops "for the way they are doing their difficult jobs under extremely dangerous conditions. We expressed our unwavering support for them, and for their families, as well as our hope that they will come home safely and soon."
Bush, who is often out of town on big protest days, remained in Washington for the weekend. The White House said the president phoned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq to reaffirm his commitment to the troop increase.
But on the streets of Washington yesterday, it was a commitment to bringing US troops home that animated the crowds.
"This is what I wanted to see when I was in Iraq," remarked Geoff Millard , 26, an Iraq war veteran, as he surveyed the crowd. "Finally we might have a Congress that will listen."
Melida Arredondo of Roslindale, whose stepson , A.B. "Alex" Arredondo , was killed on his second tour to Iraq in 2004, was also on hand with Gold Star Families for Peace, which includes the loved ones of those who have died in Iraq.
"It's not just a few hundred or a few thousand of us," she said after her husband , Carlos Arredondo, spoke to the crowd. "I get offended when they say if we pull out that Alex died in vain. He died so his friends could come home."
Standing on tiptoe to reach the microphone, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold of Harvard, Mass., was the youngest speaker. Arnold, who organized a petition against the war at her school, told the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."
Sarah Francis , 78, of New York City, came to the rally with fellow members of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the city's largest public employees union. "The union supported us [traveling] down for the purpose of trying to right the wrong and to seek peace," she said.
A small group of people, however, came to the Mall to show their support for the war. About 40 people, including those whose loved ones are serving in the military, staged a counter-protest.
One of them, Army Corporal Joshua Sparling , 25, lost his leg in a bomb attack in Iraq in November 2005. He said the anti war protesters, especially those who are veterans or who are on active duty, "need to remember the sacrifice we have made and what our fallen comrades would say if they are alive."
Official estimates of the size the crowd were not available, but police said informally that fewer than 100,000 demonstrators showed up.
Asked to comment on the rally, Melvin Laird , President Richard Nixon's secretary of defense from 1969 to 1973, said he was surprised at the predicted turnout. "We never had one that big during Vietnam," he said.
But Laird did see parallels between the two unpopular conflicts. "There is a comparable problem between President Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush in terms of public support," he said. "And both found themselves [weakened] at the end of their terms."
Still, it remained unclear whether Congress will be willing to do what their predecessors eventually did in Vietnam: deprive the president of the federal funds necessary to wage the war.
Representative Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who is running for president in 2008, is among the few members of Congress who believes there is no choice.
"Congress must step up to its responsibility," he said as he headed to the rally site with supporters carrying "Kucinich 2008" posters. "We must cut off the funds for the war. There is already the money in the pipeline to bring the troops home."
Susan Sarandon , an actress and peace activist, suggested a novel way that Democrats in Congress could inoculate themselves from charges of not supporting the troops.
"Instead of simply not funding the war, they should take some of that money and fund the vets," she said in an interview. "Have you been to a GI hospital? They have one doctor for 600 patients. They have to wait months for treatment."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
? Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
In Boston, support for demonstrators
Protesters cite attitude shift since election
 Hundreds of antiwar demonstrators lined Tremont Street by Boston Common yesterday during an afternoon rally, one of several scheduled across the nation. (John Tlumacki/ Globe Staff) |
In the four years he has been protesting the war in Iraq , Don Hnatowich said he has been called every name in the book.
"We've only gotten one thumbs down," said the Brookline resident. "After the invasion, people would call us names, yell at us. But since the election in November, there's been more support."
Hnatowich and his wife were among several hundred protesters who gathered near the Park Street MBTA station to protest the war. The protest was one of dozens scheduled across the nation, including one in Washington that drew tens of thousands of people to the National Mall.
Many of yesterday's protesters brought their signs and voices to Boston because they couldn't make the trek to Washington.
"I couldn't go to Washington, but I'll stay here until I can't feel my feet anymore," said Tima Smith , of Pomfret, Conn.
"I came out because I think our government has to be held accountable and hear our voices," said Smith, who pumped her sign in the air and waved at honking vehicles on Tremont Street.
The nationwide protests are the first major anti war rallies held since the Democratic Party won the majority in Congress in November's elections.
David Ascher , an organizer with Newton Dialogues on Peace and War , an organization that helped organize yesterday's event, said the elections have reinvigorated anti war sentiment across the country and brought more protesters out to the streets.
"Before the election, people would be private in their protest," Ascher said as he surveyed the swelling crowd. "Now, it's like everyone isn't supressed anymore."Ascher said neither his group nor the Committee for Peace and Human Rights , which has held weekly vigils near Park Street station since 1991 , had expected many people to show up for yesterday's rally. They were pleased with the attendance.
Some in the crowd started chants and encouraged pedestrians emerging from the subway station to join in. Many did.
Others held signs bearing messages such as "War is terrorism with a bigger budget" and explained to passersby their meaning. Others handed out pamphlets with information on how to contact local lawmakers.
Many said they hoped the surge in anti war sentiment after November's election would not wane soon.
"I'm definitely feeling a change now," Smith said of the nation's political mood. "Our leaders are seeing that the American people won't take this forever."
Putting Iran in Great Power Context
By Michael T. Klare
For months, the American press and policy-making elite have portrayed the crisis with Iran as a two-sided struggle between Washington and Tehran, with the European powers as well as Russia and China playing supporting roles. It is certainly true that George Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the leading protagonists in this drama, with each making inflammatory statements about the other in order to whip up public support at home. But an informed reading of recent international diplomacy surrounding the Iranian crisis suggests that another equally fierce -- and undoubtedly more important -- struggle is also taking place: a tripolar contest between the United States, Russia, and China for domination of the greater Persian Gulf/Caspian Sea region and its mammoth energy reserves.
When it comes to grand strategy, top Bush administration officials have long attempted to maintain American dominance of the "global chessboard" (as they see it) by diminishing the influence of the only other significant players, Russia and China. This classic geopolitical contest began with a flourish in early 2001, when the White House signaled the provocative course it planned to follow by unilaterally repudiating the U.S.-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and announcing new high-tech arms sales to Taiwan, which China still considers a breakaway province. After 9/11, these initial signals of antagonism were toned down in order to secure Russian and Chinese assistance in fighting the war on terror, but in recent months the classic chessboard version of great-power politics has again come to dominate strategic thinking in Washington.
Advancing the Strategic Pawns
This resurgence was perhaps first signaled on May 4, when Vice President Dick Cheney went to Lithuana, the former Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), to lambaste the Russian government at a pro-democracy confab. He accused Kremlin officials of "unfairly and improperly" restricting the rights of Russian citizens and of using the country's abundant oil and gas supplies as "tools of intimidation [and] blackmail" against its neighbors. He also condemned Moscow for attempting to "monopolize the transportation" of oil and gas supplies in Eurasia -- a direct challenge to U.S. interests in the Caspian region.
The next day, Cheney flew to the former SSR of Kazakhstan in oil and natural gas rich Central Asia, where he urged that country's leaders to ship their plentiful oil through a U.S.-sponsored pipeline to Turkey and the Mediterranean rather than through Russian-controlled pipelines to Europe.
Then, on June 3, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld weighed in on China, telling an audience of Asian security officials that Beijing's "lack of transparency" with respect to its military spending "understandably causes concerns for some of its neighbors." These comments were accompanied by publicly announced plans for increased U.S. spending on sophisticated weapons systems liked the F-22A Air-superiority Fighter and Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines that could only be useful in a big-power war for which there were just two candidates, Russia and China.
Like Russia, China has also aroused Washington's ire over its aggressive energy policies -- but in China's case over its increasing attempts to nail down oil and gas supplies for its burgeoning, energy-poor economy. In Military Power of the People's Republic of China, its most recent report on Chinese military capabilities issued on May 23, the Pentagon decried China's use of arms transfers and other military aid as inducements to countries like Iran and Sudan to gain access to energy reserves in the Middle East and Africa, and for acquiring warships "that could serve as the basis for a force capable of power projection" into the oil-producing regions of the planet.
There's nothing new about the Bush administration's urge to rollback Russia and "contain" China. Such thinking was famously articulated in the "Defense Planning Guidance for 1994-99," written by then Undersecretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and leaked to the press in early 1992. "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union," the document famously declared. This remains the principal aim of U.S. strategy today, but it has now been joined by another key objective: to ensure that the United States -- and no one else -- controls the energy supplies of the Persian Gulf and adjacent areas of Asia.
When first articulated in the "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, this precept was directed exclusively at the Gulf; now, under President Bush, it has been extended to the Caspian Sea basin as well -- a consequence of rising oil prices, fears of diminishing supplies, and the vast oil and natural gas deposits believed to be housed there. To assert U.S. influence in this region, once part of the Soviet Union, the White House has been setting up military bases, supplying arms, and conducting a sub-rosa war of influence with both Moscow and Beijing.
Knight's moves in the Gulf
It is in this context that the current struggle over Iran must be viewed. Iran occupies a pivotal position on the tripolar chessboard. Geographically, it is the only nation that abuts both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, positioning Tehran to play a significant role in the two areas of greatest energy concern to the United States, Russia, and China. Iran also abuts the strategic Strait of Hormuz -- the narrow waterway from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean through which about one-quarter of the world's oil moves every day. As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global markets, especially in Europe and Japan.
As the most populous and industrialized nation in the Persian Gulf basin, Iran has always played a significant role in that region's affairs -- a situation that has often troubled neighbors like Saddam Hussein's Iraq (which invaded Iran in 1980, beginning a bloody eight-year war that ended in an exhausted stalemate). In recent years, Iran has also gained regional clout as the center of the Shia branch of Islam. Long despised and abused by Sunnis, the Shia are now in the ascendancy in neighboring Iraq and are gaining greater visibility in Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and the Shia-populated areas of Saudi Arabia nearest to Kuwait (where crucial Saudi oil fields lie) in what is starting to be thought of as the "Shia crescent."
At present, Iran's military capabilities are not impressive -- a result, in part, of the U.S. embargo on sales of spare parts to the Iranian air force (largely equipped with American aircraft during the reign of the former Shah). But Iran has acquired submarines and other modern weapons from Russia and has developed a ballistic missile capability -- probably with help from North Korea and China. Were it ever to succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons, it would indeed become a formidable regional power, possibly calling into question America's projected military domination of the Gulf. It is for this reason more than any other that Washington is so determined to block its acquisition of nuclear arms.
While both Russia and China claim to be opposed to such a development, they certainly wouldn't view it with the same degree of dread and fury as does the Bush administration -- a consideration that has no doubt given added impetus to its drive to block Iran's nuclear efforts.
Above all, of course, Iran possesses the world's second largest reserves of petroleum -- an estimated 132 billion barrels (11.1% of the world's known reservoirs); and also the second largest reserves of natural gas -- 971 trillion cubic feet (15.3% of known reservoirs). The Iranians may possess less oil than the Saudis and less gas than the Russians, but no other country controls so much of both of these vital resources. Many states including China, India, Japan, and the European Union countries already depend on Iran for significant shares of their petroleum supplies; and China and the others have been busy negotiating deals to develop, and then draw on, its mammoth natural gas reserves. Iran will not only remain a major energy supplier, but also one of the few that has the capacity -– with the right kind of investment -- to substantially boost its output in the years ahead when many other sources of oil and gas will have gone into decline.
In 1953, after the CIA helped oust Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Iranian oil industry, American energy firms came to play a commanding role in Iran's oil industry with the blessing of the Shah. This remained true until he fell in the Khomeini revolution of 1979. They would no doubt love to return to Iran, if given the opportunity; but Washington's hostility to the Islamic regime in Tehran now precludes their reentry. Under Executive Order 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush, all U.S. companies are barred from operating in Iran. But should "regime change" ever occur there -- the implied objective of U.S. policy -- this Executive Order would be lifted and U.S. firms would be able to do what Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and other firms are now doing, exploiting Iranian energy supplies. Just how much energy figures into the administration's desire for political change in Iran cannot be fully judged from the outside, but given the close ties Bush, Cheney, and other key administration officials have with the U.S. energy industry, it is hard to believe that it doesn't play a highly significant one.
For China's energy plans, Iran's "pariah" status has certainly been a boon. Because U.S. firms are barred from investing and European companies face American economic penalties if they do so (under the congressionally mandated Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996), Chinese companies have had a relatively open playing field as they shop for promising energy deals like the $50 billion one signed in 2004 to develop the massive Yadavaran gas field and to buy 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually for 25 years.
Russia, unlike energy-desperate China, is practically drowning in oil and natural gas, but has an abiding interest in not seeing energy-rich neighboring Iran fall under the sway of the U.S. and, as a major supplier of nuclear equipment and technology, also has a special interest in lending a profitable hand to Iran's energy establishment. The Russians are completing the construction of a civilian nuclear reactor at Bushehr in southwest Iran, a $1 billion project, and are eager to sell more reactors and other nuclear energy systems to the Iranians. This, of course, is a source of considerable frustration to Washington, which seeks to isolate Tehran and prevent it from receiving any nuclear technology. (Although an entirely civilian project, Bushehr would no doubt be on the target list for any American air attack intended to cripple Iran's nuclear capacity.) Nevertheless, the head of the Russian nuclear energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, announced in February, "We don't see any political obstacles to completing Bushehr" and bringing it on line "in the swiftest possible period."
Given what is at stake, it is easy to see why the United States, Russia, and China all have such an abiding interest in the outcome of the Iranian crisis. For Washington, the replacement of the clerical government in Tehran with a U.S.-friendly regime would represent a colossal, threefold accomplishment: It would eliminate a major threat to America's continued dominance of the Persian Gulf, open up the world's number two oil-and-gas supplier to American energy firms, and greatly diminish Chinese and Russian influence in the greater Gulf region.
From a geopolitical perspective, there could be no greater win on the global chessboard today. Even if Washington failed to achieve regime change but, using its military might, crippled Iran's nuclear establishment without sustaining major damage itself in Iraq or elsewhere, this would still be a significant geopolitical win, exposing the inability of either Russia or China to counter American moves of this sort. (This would only work, of course, if the Bush administration was able to contain the inevitable fallout from such action, whether increased ethnic strife in Iraq or a sharp spike in oil prices.)
Not surprisingly, Moscow and Beijing are doing everything in their power to prevent any American geopolitical triumph in Iran or Central Asia from occurring, though without provoking an outright breach in relations with Washington -- and so endangering complex economic ties with the United States.
As this grand geopolitical "Great Game" unfolds, with the potential economic well-being of the planet at stake, all sides are trying to line up allies wherever possible, using whatever diplomatic levers are available. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. position in both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia has noticeably deteriorated. At present, the Bush administration's greatest weakness remains the schism in U.S.-European relations created by the unilateral U.S. invasion itself. Because the Europeans felt betrayed by that action, they have largely refrained from helping out either in the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq or in funding the reconstruction of the country. This has imposed a ghastly and mounting cost on the United States. Fearing a repetition of this fiasco in Iran, the White House has clearly decided to let the diplomatic process play out on the Iranian crisis in a way they refused to do when it came to Saddam's Iraq. So, within limits, they are letting the Europeans set the diplomatic game plan for "resolving" the nuclear dispute.
This, in turn, has given Moscow and Beijing their one obvious option for averting what could be a geopolitical disaster for them in Iran: the potential use of a Security Council veto to block the imposition of U.S.-threatened sanctions on Iran under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which could legitimize not only such sanctions but also the use of force against any state deemed to pose a threat to international peace. The Europeans want to prevent such a vote from occurring -- knowing that any "failure" at the UN might only strengthen the arguments of the hawks in Washington who want to move unilaterally and by force against Iran. As a result, they are listening to the Russians and Chinese who insist on relying on diplomacy -- and nothing else -- to resolve the crisis, however long that takes.
"Russia believes that the sole solution for this problem will be based on the work of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency],"said the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in March. Very similar statements have been issued by Chinese officials, who have expressly ruled out force as an acceptable solution to the crisis. In February, for instance, the Chinese Ambassador to the IAEA, Wu Hailongon, called on "all relevant parties to exercise restraint and patience" and "refrain from any action that might further complicate or deteriorate the situation."
Checkmate for Whom?
That all key parties see this unfolding crisis as part of a larger geopolitical struggle is beyond doubt. For example, the Russians and Chinese have begun to create something of a counter-bloc to the United States in Central Asia, using the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a vehicle. Originally established by Moscow and Beijing to combat ethnic separatism in Central Asia, the SCO -- now including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan -- has become more like a regional security organization, a sort of mini-NATO (but also an anti-NATO). Clearly, the Russians and the Chinese hope that it will help them turn back U.S. influence in the energy-rich former Islamic territories of the old Soviet Union, and in this it has shown -- in Uzbekistan, at least -- some signs of realpolitik success. At a recent meeting of the organization, the current members went so far as to invite Iran to join as an observer -- to the obvious displeasure of Washington. "It strikes me as passing strange," Secretary Rumsfeld opined recently in Singapore, "that one would want to bring into an organization that says it's against terrorism... the leading terrorist nation in the world: Iran."
At the same time, the United States has sought to line up its own allies -- including south Asian wildcard, India -- for a possible military confrontation with Iran. Even though Bush insists that he's prepared to rely on diplomacy to resolve the crisis, Pentagon officials have sought the assistance of NATO in planning air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. In March, for example, the head of NATO's Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, General Axel Tuttelmann, indicated that his force was ready to assist American forces at the very onset of a U.S. attack on Iran. The German press has also reported that former CIA director Peter Goss visited Turkey late last year to request that country's assistance in conducting air strikes against Iran.
Despite continuing calls for diplomacy to prevail, all sides in this wider struggle recognize that the current situation cannot last forever. For one thing, the shaky position of the Bush administration -- politically at home, in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in its attempts to secure geopolitical advantage in Central Asia, and economically at a global level -- continues to develop fissures and to embolden those countries, Iran included, which might frustrate its desires. To top Bush officials, still dreaming of global energy hegemony, the situation may seem increasingly perilous, but the window to act may also appear in danger of closing. Their appetite for European, Chinese, or Russian stalling tactics, no less Iranian intransigence, may not be great; and, however much Moscow and Beijing try to persuade the Iranians to back down on nuclear matters, thereby averting American military action, their influence in Tehran may not prove strong enough.
If, in the coming few months, Iran rejects U.S. demands for the complete and permanent termination of its nuclear enrichment activities, the United States will certainly insist on the imposition of sanctions at the UN. If, in turn, the Security Council (with the acquiescence of Russia and China) adopts purely symbolic gestures to no visible effect, Washington will then demand tougher sanctions under Chapter 7; and if either Russia or China vetoes such measures, the Bush administration will almost certainly choose to use military means against Iran, playing out Moscow's and Beijing's worst fears.
Russia and China can thus be expected to stretch out the diplomatic process for as long as possible, hoping thereby to make military action by the United States appear illegitimate to the Europeans and others. By the same token, the hawks in Washington will undoubtedly become increasingly impatient with the delays -- viewing them as rear-guard strategic moves by Russia and China -- and so will push for military action by the end of this year if nothing has been accomplished by then on the diplomatic front.
As the crisis over Iran unfolds, most of the news commentary will continue to focus on the war of words between Washington and Tehran. Political insiders understand, however, that the most significant struggle is the one that remains just out of sight, pitting Washington against Moscow and Beijing in the battle for global influence and energy domination. From this perspective, Iran is just one battlefield -- however significant -- in a far larger, more long-lasting, and momentous contest.
Michael T. Klare is the Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict.
Copyright 2006 Michael T. Klare