Closely argued scathing critique of antiwar politicians and organizers, this op-ed asserts that they hide behind huge unaccountable amorphous political bodies like the EU and the UN to avoid taking responsibility, and that their position is so dangerous precisely because it is so passive.

. . . Ask yourself why, exactly, a war waged under the auspices of the UN is better than one waged by Britain and America alone. Would the outcome be any different, the consequences any less bloody? No. The difference is that, if the UN goes to war, it is tantamount to the wrath of God. We have no control over the UN, and therefore we have no responsibility for it. . . . But for those crying 'Not in my name', the attraction of such bodies is precisely that they let the electorate, us, individuals, the little people, off the hook. Bad things happen, but we cannot be implicated, because we have no control. So we become, not individuals with limited power, but victims with no power at all.

. . . None of these people are fighting to take control of the situation, to galvanise a political opposition to this new Gulf war or anything else. All of these people are taking the opportunity to air their personal objections to the latest twist, to gain their personal absolution from the bloody mess. All of these people are saying, 'Not in my name'. And all of these people were supposed to be responsible for running the country.

Outside Downing Street, the antiwar lobby stages die-ins to show just how seriously they take their victim status, and encourage working people to take an impromptu coffee break when war breaks out. Database inputting? Not in my name! Schoolchildren - who really do have no decision-making power - are applauded for skipping lessons to show how much they do not want to be a part of world politics. Double maths? Not in my name!

As they say, read the whole thing.

Posted By Judith (Kesher Talk) at April 4, 2003 01:53 AM | TrackBack