Paul Usiskin

I didn't march in London in protest at the war prepared against Iraq. Its not because I advocate wars. I've been in one and watched too many others to honestly believe they are "a good thing". But there was a mixture of such over simplification of the issues together with a piggy-backing on this march for other purposes. Nothing in this world is as black and white as so many "virgin" marchers were making out. Each of the countries currently embroiled at NATO and in the UN are all playing for self-interest, even if it's as simple as "I want to be the one who says it first" or "my way's better".

France's Chirac is desperate to protect the country's large oil exploration investments in Iraq, and to maintain political popularity. Russia has an astounding $3 billion invested in the sands of Saddam's dictatorship it would much rather not see go the way of Kuwait's oil fields 11 years ago. Germany's Schroeder simply needs popular support.  I'm not clear on Belgium's status other than an "also-ran" sandwiched between two old adversaries of the old Europe. And in case you didn't notice, France's only aircraft carrier was sent out to the Persian Gulf ten days ago, and Germany has anti-biological warfare units stationed with "allied" troops in Kuwait - so much for not wanting to be in the war.

It is also unclear what the Palestinians thought they were achieving by getting banners to read "Stop The War Against Iraq - Support Palestine". The last war against Iraq proved a disaster for Yassir Arafat. He squarely opted for Saddam and has been dumped by this US administration which inherited the need for war and its stance on Arafat - a sort of Thatcherite "....you're against us" formula, which no amount of siding with the US post 9/11 has altered. "Stop The War Against Palestine - Start Talks" or "Stop Israel's Occupation of Palestine"  would have been more relevant. And yet one plus from the London protest was the feeling of unity shared with British Moslem protesters - against Israel and the wicked Bush/Blair partnership.  This overt anti-Israel message was so powerful as to make it almost impossible for many Jewish critics of Israel who want to protest the war with Iraq to join the protests. There was in the London protests, as seen on television, no distinguishing line between the two issues.

And yet if there is even a pause in the US tracks towards an all out attack on Iraq, the protesters will have won a victory. It may mean that George Bush Jr has heard that most US churches oppose the war. It may also mean that Tony Blair must accept that he has lost popularity enough to urge Bush to wait a while, and like all political leaders, Blair is not suicidal, and wants to stay in power.  So does Bush. He's still got to get the economy right. The small but clear rise in the NY Stock Exchange in the wake of the NATO - UN spats must send the Bush people a message - anything even vaguely smacking of normality brings stability back to the markets. If this is one plank he must position to stay in, I wonder what trick he's got for the other totally conflicting one - war to topple Sadam and keep a promise to his father, and to the American and Iraqi peoples.

None of the world politics of the last week will bring any comfort to the Republican policy forgers who got together with their Israeli Likud counter-parts after Bush senior failed to win a second term. There were three conclusions drawn by them: that the USA should be world top dog; that if the choice for that was through international law or force, the latter should be used; that the Mid-East should be resolved with Saddam first and Israel-Palestine second. Proof of being "top dog" means unleashing naked power whenever you choose. Until 9/11 there wasn't even the barest excuse for that and then thanks to Bin Laden there was. But the buy-offs that took place last time under Bush senior are either not in place yet or not enough. Is the price for being top dog reasonable? How much for France, Germany and Russia? And how much for rebuilding Iraq? And for installing and maintaining its new democracy?  And for a Pax Americana in the Arab Mid-East? And how many American body bags will it take before trusting American mothers and fathers protest?

The amazing truth is that everyone agrees - Saddam is on a black horse wearing a black hat. And even if George Bush Jr is the kind of Christian one of yesterday's rally speakers disowned, everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein must go. The other truth is less palatable, and it is that the protests took the world further from and not closer to Saddam's removal. There was glee in the eyes of Tariq Aziz when he said that "it is unfair to disqualify our missiles because they have 160 instead of 150 kilometers range - who can they hurt?" Yes, who indeed - Kurds, marsh dwellers, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Iranians, even - heaven forefend - Israelis?

For those in Israel who oppose Arik Sharon there is cold comfort from the postponement of war with Iraq. Cold comfort because as long as it doesn't happen he can't form the dream team coalition he so desperately wants. He may run out of the statutory 42 days to form a government and have to start again. War means national emergency. National emergency means a national coalition and few if any former generals could ignore or avoid a call to the flag. Once in, Amram and Binyamin and Ephraim, you're in for good. And then? Well, what's left is the muted voice of Israeli peace-seekers, protesting.

Paul Usiskin,

England