8th Anniversary of Global Protest Against Iraq War—Relook at Phyllis Bennis' Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, & the UN Defy U.S.

Thousands in NYC protest the Bush administration's planned invasion of Iraq war on February 15, 2003. (Photo: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton, via Common Dreams)

On February 15, 2003, tens of millions of people, on the streets of 600-800 cities worldwide, co-created the largest anti-war demonstration in history to protest the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

Among the people who marched for peace: 3 million in Rome • 750,000 in London • 50,000 in Glasgow, Scotland • Between 100-200,000 in Paris (total of 500,000 in 80 cities in France) •  Between 300-500,000 in Berlin (joined by Germans in 300 cities and towns, including trade unionists and church leaders •  100,000 in Brussels •  10,000 in Warsaw • 150,000 in Athens • 80,000 in Lisbon • 60,000 in Oslo • 60,000 in Stockholm & Gothenberg, Sweden • 100,000 in Montreal •  80,000 in Toronto • 40,000 in Vancover (& more in 67 other Canadian cities) • 300,000 to one million in NYC • 50,000 in LA • 4,000 in Colorado Springs (withstanding violence from police using tear gas, stun guns and batons) • 100-300,000 in Damascus • 10,000 in Beirut • 5,000 in Jordan • 25,000 in Tokyo, followed by another 5,000 the next day (including protests at some of the 100 US military bases located in Japan and Okinawa-- where the U.S. train and station troops before deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan) • 10,000 in India • 3,000 in Seoul • 20, 000 in Cape Town, South Africa • 200,000 throughout Australia • 10,000 in New Zealand.

As global mass protests shake up Empire as usual—on the 8th Anniversary of Global Protest Against Iraq War—we're taking a relook at Democracy Now!'s Feb. 15, 2005 "Look at Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, & the UN Defy U.S. Power" by Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, who advises we must work to stop upcoming wars before they start.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis has a new book, arguing the anti-war movement has evolved into a major force for global change. The book is called Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the U.N. Defy U.S. Power...

PHYLLIS BENNIS:...We didn’t succeed at stopping the war. But I think that would be a very partial assessment. What was created—and it wasn’t only around February 15, but that emerged as the centerpiece of this extraordinary global mobilization—was an exemplar of what it’s going to take to challenge this global drive towards empire, this drive towards war that has been so characteristic, not only of the Bush administration, but in a far more blatant and aggressive way than we had ever seen before.

It was an amazing thing, because I think what was so important was not only that you had so many people in the streets in so many different cities mobilized under one slogan in so many different languages—"The world says no to war"—but it was powerful enough that governments around the world were forced, for a combination of reasons, the pressure of their own citizens being the most important, but for their own opportunist reasons, as well, to do the right thing, even if, for the wrong reasons sometimes, to stand up to the U.S., to refuse to give in to the pressure that not only the powerful countries like France and Germany, but smaller, weaker countries, those on the Security Council, the six so-called uncommitted six, that refused to give in to U.S. pressure, under enormous threats. Chile, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan. These were not countries that could ordinarily go head to head with the U.S. When there were enough of them, it forced the U.N. to do what the U.N. is supposed to do, but so rarely does, which is to stand against what its own charter calls the "scourge of war."

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis, I wanted to stop you for a second on the issue of the U.N. Security Council right before the invasion, which goes to another controversy that the Bush administration is trying to deal with right now, and that’s the issue of domestic spying, the idea of spying on Americans.

PHYLLIS BENNIS:: Right.

AMY GOODMAN:: But we saw this before the invasion, and that was on the U.N. Security Council members.

PHYLLIS BENNIS:: That’s correct.

AMY GOODMAN:Can you remind us what happened?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: That’s right. In the months leading up to what was hoped by the Bush administration to be a vote on a real resolution endorsing the war, a vote they were never able to get, they were spying—the way they’re spying on the American people now, they were spying on every major country in the United Nations. They were spying on U.N. missions, on U.N. ambassadors, on cars, perhaps on the U.N.’s own territory, something which is not new. We know there has been spying on U.N. delegates ever since 1948—sorry, 1945, when the U.N. was first created. But this was an extraordinary blatant effort to find out what delegations were thinking and figure out ways to pressure them.

But we know it didn’t work, and I think this is what’s important about that mobilization. It wasn’t able to succeed at making this war globally acceptable and legal. That was what the Bush administration desperately wanted, and that’s what they failed to get, because the U.N. refused to vote to endorse the war, because government stood against it, and crucially, because there was this global movement that brought millions of people, somewhere between 12 and 14 million people, what the Guinness Book of World Records said was the largest global mobilization in history. It brought those people into the streets to say no to war. And that meant that when they did launch the war, there was no question around the world that this was an aggressive, illegal war.

And the question of how to mobilize against it was put much more on the agenda. Now, of course, the challenge for us is to figure out how to make real, when the governmental opposition has collapsed, the U.N. opposition has collapsed—what we have left is the most important centerpiece, the global people’s movements against this war, how to remobilize them to take up the demand to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, bring all of the troops home now at a time when we know there’s going to be troop withdrawals. They will probably be on a large scale but will not lead to an end to occupation, and at a time when we have to be mobilizing to prevent the expansion of the war into Iran in the face of these extraordinary threats that are going on.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, you met with Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary General; Harry Belafonte; and South Africa’s, well, former Archbishop, Desmond Tutu?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: On the morning of February 15, before the demonstrations began, we had an extraordinary moment when that small group went to meet with Secretary General Kofi Annan on the 38th floor in his office at the United Nations, only moments before the rally was to begin downstairs on that freezing cold New York day. And Bishop Tutu opened the meeting, and he said to his old friend—the two Nobel Laureates, African statesmen, who had worked together for so many years—he looked at Kofi Annan across the table, and he said, "We are here today on behalf of the people that are marching in 665 cities around the world. And we’re here to tell you that those people marching in all of those cities, we claim the United Nations as our own. We claim it in the name of the global mobilization for peace."

It was an extraordinary moment. It was the last thing Kofi Annan wanted to hear, at a moment when he was under such enormous pressure from the United States to put the U.N. on the side of the U.S. war. But he refused and ultimately did say the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. We have to reclaim that role for the United Nations. It didn’t last long. It was a blink in history. It was an eight-month moment, when we had the countries, the governments and the U.N. on the side of this popular mobilization, but it’s that three-part mobilization—people, governments, and the U.N.—that we’re going to have to rebuild to stop the war that’s going on now, to prevent the next war that’s emerging as we speak...

Imgur.com: Photograph of Christians protecting Muslims praying during protests in Egypt

Amazing image of solidarity: photograph of Christians protecting Muslims while they pray during protests in Egypt.

Global Article 9 Campaign Report on Japan's New Defense Policy (critics fear further undermining of Article 9)

The Global Article 9 Campaign's report on developments in Japan's military policy:

On December 17, the Japanese Cabinet published new defense guidelines - the first policy review since 2004.

Issued under the leadership of Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), in power since 2009, the 2010 National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) are to shape the country's defense policy over the coming years.

The policy revision takes place in a context of what the guidelines call a "global shift in the balance of power" with "the rise of emerging powers and relative change in the US influence." Indeed, Japan increasingly sees China's ongoing military modernization and North Korea's nuclear and missile development as threats to its national security. Furthermore, the new guidelines also aim to address new threats posed by cyber warfare, terrorism and piracy.

The new NDPG claim to be in conformity with Japan's defense policy tradition and Tokyo gave insurances that the country will "continue to uphold ... [its] exclusively defensive defense policy and the three non-nuclear principles." Yet critics have expressed their fear that the new guidelines may revisit some important principles enshrined in Japan's peace Constitution.

Among the most notable changes set forth by the NDPG figure the integration of the decision-making process under the leadership of the Prime Minister as part of an integrated security strategy, as well as the development of a "dynamic defense capability" (as opposed to Japan's traditional basic deterrence-based security policy). Though China is not explicitly mentioned in this context, analysts explain the shift as clearly referring to China - the language used in the guidelines being "southbound". A more proactive and flexible military approach will require a shift of resources from conventional heavy forces to more flexible and mobile capability (notably with an upgrade of Japan's fighter jets and expansion of its submarine fleet).

At the center of the review lies the desire to "deepen" the alliance with the US, deemed as "indispensable" to Japan's security. Washington has long been calling for Japan to play a stronger security role in the region. The NDPG also recommend the strengthening of security cooperation through "multi-layered" bilateral and multilateral frameworks in Asia-Pacific, notably with South Korea and Australia.

Further, the document calls for "a more efficient and effective manner" of participating in international peace cooperation activities. This implies a review of Japan's five principles on Peacekeeping operations - notably further discussions on the criteria for the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces abroad and the use of weapons, whose conformity with Article 9 of Japan's Constitution has been much debated.

The new defense policy, however, has refrained from explicitly calling for a review of the country's longstanding ban of arms exports.

Established in 1967 in the spirit of Article 9 of the Constitution, Japan's Three Principles on Arms Exports do not permit exports of weapons to Communist bloc countries, countries subject to United Nations sanctions, or countries involved in international conflicts. The export ban was virtually extended to all countries in 1976.

Though the government had initially been considering a review of the so-called three principles with the intention of loosening them, it eventually decided against including the debate in the NDPG to avoid alienating the Social Democratic Party, whose support was crucial. The issue of arms exports remains however at the center of the debate, as the government foresees that Japan will ''consider measures to deal with major changes" in that regard in the Diet and at the national level. But Seijo University associate professor Aoi Miho warns: ''the three principles are measures that embody Article 9, and as such should not be changed readily.''

The newly adopted defense policy guidelines are a source of concern among many lawmakers and political analysts in Japan and in the region.

Indeed, China perceives the new defense guidelines as "provocative" and "irresponsible," and criticized the NDPG stating they "will only create more suspicion and mistrust in the region." Likewise, Japanese analysts fear they could jeopardize regional peace and stability by creating suspicion and distrust among the country's neighbors, who may interpret the review as an indication of Tokyo's willingness to raise Japan's military profile.

In Japan, critics have raised their voice against what they consider to be a move in the wrong direction.

The Democratic Party of Japan was elected in 2009 after a campaign that put forward the DPJ's pacifist orientation, notably in regards to the US presence in Okinawa. The new NDPG, to many, seem to be questioning some of the core values enshrined in Article 9 of Japan's Constitution.

Foreign Minister Maehara Seiji, answering questions on the new policy, said: "The foundation of our country is our Constitution, and the three pillars are fundamental human rights, democracy, and pacifism... At the same time, however, I think that we must react properly to the changing times."

The debate over reviewing Japan's arms export policy and participation in UN peacekeeping operations abroad, as well as the country's new positioning in the region threaten to tarnish Japan's postwar pacifist image.

In the words of military journalist Maeda Tetsuo: ''Japan has had a brand image as a nation that neither sells weapons nor sends combat troops abroad, and for this, it has been valued by the world."

Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war as a means of settling international disputes and prohibits the maintenance of armed forces and other war potential. It has also acted as an international peace mechanism that calls for a global peace that does not rely on force.

Read a summary of the NDPG report here.