The Politics of Peace

by Polly Mann, WAMM

The recent vote in the U.S. Congress to give the president of the United States the authority to declare war should remind us that the difference between the political parties is a thin division that melts away when an important vote can determine the future of an officeholder. There was a closing of political ranks with visible symbols of a united front from both the right and the left. Only Rep. Barbara Lee (Dem., CA) dissented. I am convinced that the response of Albert Gore as president would have been, substantially, the same as that of George Bush.

If in-depth interviews could be held with members of Congress, I believe they would reveal that many of them have great reservations about involving the United States in a third world war, which, indeed, could be the war to end all wars and the world itself. So why would they vote to give the president war powers? They voted to protect their political futures.

My experience in lobbying against the Vietnam War provides an example. Late in the war, under the auspices of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, I spent a couple of weeks in Washington calling on about 50 members of Congress from the upper Midwest. Among other questions, I asked each if he would vote to end all funding for the war if he was assured that he would be reelected. With the exception of about four representatives, all said yes. Americans and Vietnamese were dying as the war continued because U.S. congressmen put their reelection above the lives of human beings.

Today, with U.S. military intervention imminent, I believe this same reasoning has provided the president with the power to lead the world to destruction. So what can peace people do? They can continue, with renewed fervor, to build a movement based on justice, a movement that becomes so strong that politicians cannot ignore its message.

Some say the efforts of women must be intensified. The Japanese organization Violence Against Women in War Network has issued a "call for global solidarity against global war" that could provide the mission statement: "This terrorist attack is an international crime, not a war. . . . Violence does not eradicate terrorism. Violence only produces more violence. . . . We appeal to citizens of the world, including U.S. citizens of conscience, to unite and oppose the globalization of war by our "globalization" of solidarity. Our deep belief firmly stands in the philosophy of nonviolence that denies all forms of violence. We ask women all over the world to work together to create a 21st century of peace, not to repeat the century of war."

A longer version of this article first appeared in The Pulse.