An Athenian Diary

7

Political Protest in Athens Against US

Policy in Iraq

On Saturday, September 27, a massive anti-war demonstration took place on the streets of Athens. Marchers assembled at Syntagma Square, the political heart of the city, opposite the house of the Greek national legislature. They paraded up Vassileias Sophias, one of the main arteries leading east, which had been closed off for the demonstration. They carried a variety of colorful signs and chanted slogans like "Bush -- Sharon -- terrorists" and "Out of Iraq now." The Greek Communist Party -- which, according to the poll I read last week in the Kathemerini, would win about 2.6% of the vote if elections were held today -- had organized the event, but it was open to any group. I saw "University students: Stop the War" signs and lots of Green Party folks with their distinctive eco-flags (one of which I secured for myself).

The path of the march took them right by Evangelismos hospital, so not far from our neighborhood. Camera slung around my neck, I joined the phalanx of photographers and reporters escorting the march east down the street. (It was exhilarating to walk peacefully on pavement usually crammed with cars; even the air seemed a bit fresher than usual.) At first I was just going to get a few pictures and hustle home (we had to go to a party that night at Byron College), but when I realized that the path of march would take the demonstration right by the US embassy, which occupies a city block less than a kilometer from Evangelismos, I decided to follow them on down to the embassy, to see what, if any, would be the reaction of US diplomats.

The marchers were a mixed lot. No surprise that many were young people, probably university students, with long hair and more body piercing than I have yet seen in one place in Greece. But there were middle-aged men and women, older folks, even a few moms and dads with kids. And, at the tail-end, to my utter surprise, a small group of Kurds carrying a sign in Turkish that assured the Palestinians that they were not alone. (It must take some real courage to identify yourself publicly with Turkish in Greece, which still bears a considerable animus against that country, even among the educated.) It was a gorgeous fall day, brilliant sunshine but not too hot, and people looked like they were enjoying themselves. I noticed a couple of young men grabbing rocks off the ground at one point, but that was the only indicator I saw that anyone planned anything but a peaceful march -- and those I saw were only a couple. In the event, I saw no rock-throwing or any violence at all.

The sight I found when I got to the embassy was enough to make me ashamed to be an American. The street-side of the embassy building -- which is ordinarily inaccessible anyway, due to a huge fence -- was blocked completely off by dozens of police busses, parked bumper to bumper, the whole length of the building. In front of the busses stood hundreds of paramilitary police in full riot gear, gas masks dangling from their necks, plastic body shields at the ready. In front of them stood another row of police, less heavily armed, but at the ready. The marchers were restricted to the far side of the street (there's an island separating the two directions of traffic at this point in the street), too far from the embassy to throw rocks. Each group stopped directly opposite the building, shouted chants for a couple of minutes, and moved on. The lowering face of the embassy building showed no reaction -- and there was not a single American representative to be seen. For all I could tell, the whole building was deserted, and the shouts of protest mere fading echoes against a fortress of steel and glass.

Who were the representatives of democracy? The absent American diplomats, who apparently felt no need even to respond, or the street demonstrators, with their slogans and signs, wearing their politics (in some cases quite literally, as Communist party armbands) on their sleeves? Or maybe the clean-up crew, employees of the city of Athens, who followed along at the end?

In any case, there's no doubt that the feelings here run strongly against the war and continued occupation. The signs expressed also the worry that Greece might send forces to Iraq too -- something the likelihood of which I can't comment on. And the linkage between Iraq and the Palestinian question was obvious -- including the obligatory "Victory to the Intifada" signs. But clearly many in the march weren't members of Greece's tiny (but vocal) Communist party; later that evening I noticed signs advertising the march at the entrance to a major subway stop. And the conversations I have had with Greek friends have revealed unanimous opposition to the war and the occupation. The policy of the Bush administration is doing nothing here but handing ammunition to people who don't like American policy anyway (and American capitalism), and repelling people who otherwise might be well disposed to the US. The time is clearly here to change radically our approach to Iraq.

A Political Appendix:

What is to be done?

In Iraq.

In the New York Times for Sunday, September 21, 2003, columnist Thomas Friedman offered his reasons for optimism in Iraq. These reasons boiled down to the claim that, when you're there, you can feel that the silent majority agrees with the United States, but is too afraid to express these feelings openly. What Iraq needs, he argues, is an Iraqi security force to do the street fighting necessary to roust out the remnants of the Hussein government who are behind the escalating attacks on US and British forces.

I've never been to Iraq, but I have my suspicions of an argument built on a "feeling" -- especially a feeling for which no evidence is cited. Those of us of a certain age remember Richard Nixon's assertions that the "great silent majority" in America supported the continuation of the war effort in Viet Nam. It is very hard to believe that anyone can really know the opinion of the majority of the people in a country where polling is impossible (and would be unreliable anyway), where there is no tradition of public outspokenness, and which has been under a repressive dictatorship for decades.

Surely Iraq does need security. The terrible destruction of years of dictatorship and sanctions followed by war cannot be repaired until people and property are safe. But in a state where the resistance is underground, a security force will be effective only to the extent it has the confidence of the broad population. Ordinary people must believe that such a force works for them and that they can safely cooperate with it -- reporting overheard conversation, revealing the location of arms and explosives. Under Hussein Iraq had a long experience with security forces -- an experience that surely will not predispose people to greet such a force with open arms. Under current conditions -- including the political conditions Bush has set by his obdurate refusal to accept a substantive policy role for the UN -- Americans are the ones who would select the members of such a force, train and arm them, and direct their operations. Will knowledge that the new security force is a tool of the occupying power generate confidence in its effectiveness and honesty? So far Iraqi experience of American occupation does not suggest that such confidence would be forthcoming.

Iraq cannot be abandoned. It cannot be allowed to spiral into utter chaos (a state that seems not far distant even now). But the US cannot do the job. We are now too thoroughly compromised. The only solution I can see is for the US to turn the country over completely to the UN, replace US military forces with UN-directed and commanded forces, and get out. We should then discharge our responsibility by paying in full the costs.

At home.

Bush's presidency is in a shambles. He has no policy and clearly is in a situation far beyond the abilities of his advisors. He shows no evidence of understanding the enormousness of his own culpability for the failures of his administration nor for the destruction he has wrecked both at home and abroad. Clearly, he and his crew must go.

The elections coming up in just over a year are bound to be the worst the US has experienced in a long time. Bush's people are ruthless in the pursuit of power, bound by no code of ethics or honesty or reality palpable from the outside. No doubt whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be attacked viciously, falsely, and constantly by Bush's people and their proxies. And Bush will hold in reserve the Republican-controlled Congress and the Supreme Court to overturn the results of any vote that runs against him.

But I think that more than politics is at stake. To prosecute the war, Bush lied to the American people. He claimed that Iraq possessed the famous "weapons of mass destruction," of which not a trace has been found in the country despite claims by Donald Rumsfeld before the war that we knew exactly where they were hidden, and despite the efforts of 1400 inspectors in the months following the "victory;" he claimed that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US by readiness to deliver these weapons to our country or into the hands of terrorists, claims that have proven to be utterly without basis; he claimed that Hussein supported and helped al-Qaida and was linked to the attacks of September 11, claims for which absolutely no evidence has surfaced. These lies, repeated daily for months, served as the grounding for the war. That war has now cost the lives of over 200 Americans. It has become increasingly clear, as the evidence comes out, that Bush knew these were lies when he mouthed them. Members of his administration, including Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, had been advocating attacking Iraq long before the election of 2000. The day after September 11, Rumsfeld was already telling his people to prepare for attacking Iraq and to use the terrorist attacks as a basis for making the case. Bush ordered the military to lay plans for the attack before the end of September, 2001. Wolfowitz has admitted that the administration seized on weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat to the US as the chief arguments for war because they would resonate most effectively with the American public. At the same time, this relentless focus on Iraq distracted attention and money from the real threat to the US -- the terrorist organizations that perpetrated the actual attack.

To my mind, this behavior adds up to one thing: treason. Deliberate lies to the public in pursuit of a policy antithecal to the interests of the country are surely a betrayal of the people the president is supposed to lead. This is not a matter of "policy differences" -- it runs far deeper. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury surrounding a sordid case of personal misbehavior. Bush's betrayal and lies have operated at the highest level, have placed US military forces in a highly dangerous situation in which many have been killed, and have increased, not decreased, the insecurity of the country. These actions are reprehensible, and they seem, at least prima facie, actionable. The House of Representatives should introduce a bill of impeachment against President Bush.

Please send me any comments by email.

September 28, 2003

To return to the Table of Contents of the Athenian Diary, click here.

Addendum

According to a speech Al Gore delivered on November 7 in Washington, that the Senate Intelligence Committee has been presented evidence that George Bush received "what are said to have been clear, strong and explicit warnings directly to him a few weeks before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and use them to attack us.”

If this is true, Bush certainly deserves impeachment -- if not more. At the very least, such allegations from the man who beat Bush in the 2000 election must be taken seriously and fully investigated. The Republicans have worked hard to prevent Congress, and more generally us, from finding out whether there is any truth to this reports. Such actions do not bode well for the future.

You can read more about Gore's strikingly under-reported speech of November 7, in which he also attacks Bush for undermining the Constitution and assuming quasi-dictatorial powers, in a nice article on the World Socialist Web Site.