Finnish and global peace front expands

national | miscellaneous | news report Tuesday April 08, 2003 23:50 by Anna-Stina NykA¤nen anna-stina.nykanen at sanoma dot fi

After the outbreak of the war, SMS messages were sent around Finland calling on people to light candles in windows, sign petitions, or boycott US goods. A number of different kinds of commercial boycotts are being planned.

With the war in Iraq, the peace movement has grown to be bigger than ever before. Tens of millions of people gathered in different parts of the world on February 15 to express their views in peace marches. People marched again this weekend.
After the outbreak of the war, SMS messages were sent around Finland calling on people to light candles in windows, sign petitions, or boycott US goods. A number of different kinds of commercial boycotts are being planned.
"The demonstrations have been on a scale that is completely different from those during the Vietnam War", says NGO activist and writer Risko Isomäki enthusiastically. Isomäki has been planning an antiwar boycott campaign, and is mapping out new ideas for action.
Isomäki feels that the decisive factor in the success of a demonstration is coordinating the events in different parts of the world. This was truly successful in the February marches.
"The initiative came from the planning meetings of the European Social Forum, it went on to the Asian Social Forum, and then to the World Social Forum. The movement benefited from mass meetings", Isomäki explains.
A large number of people were reached through the organisations taking part in the meetings.
Peace movements have always derived energy from existing organisations, which have taken up the cause of peace when necessary. Opposition to the war in Vietnam started out in the United States among campaigners for black civil rights, and within the hippie movement. In Europe, the student movement joined in. Now opponents of economic globalisation are the ones who have been on the move.
"It is a new situation. The anti-globalisation movement has disappeared - stopped operating - for now, and turned into the peace movement. However it has only been the prime mover. The actual movement has grown from there. Naturally the peace movement is much broader, and not nearly everyone who is involved is an opponent of globalisation. Most are quite different - including right-wingers and leftists", says Isomäki.

The marches were prepared in an international network, but Isomäki says that the unity of the movement should not be overestimated. In fact, there is is no single movement, but rather something that started on the local level and is implemented using people's own resources.
US economist Jeffrey D. Sachs sees the new peace movement as a good example of the globalisation of politics.
Sachs has analysed the birth of the large February demonstration. It was planned in advance in a manner typical of modern networks. The Internet was a cheap and easy way to organise events. Local organisations worked within the framework of a loose-knit international plan. Each has operated in its own way, relaying information, advice, and encouragement to each other through cyberspace.
What is it about this war that made people get on the move? Sachs feels that factors included general concern, and a desire to oppose the war in Iraq, in addition to a desire to oppose the arrogance of the United States. The US administration indicated with exceptional clarity that it is indifferent to world public opinion. That is what got the masses on the move.
Sachs points out that the way information spreads today, it is no longer possible to speak a different language to those at home and to the rest of the world; the style that appeals to Texas rednecks will not necessarily work in Paris or Berlin, says Sachs in an article on the globalisation of politics.

In Finland more than 50 organisations joined forces in the No Attack on Iraq network. "To form a mass movement, you need a sufficiently diverse ideological cocktail", says sociologist Tapio Litmanen of the University of Jyväskylä, who has studied the Finnish peace movement.
The coalition included groups formed by the peace movements of previous decades, such as the Finnish Peace Committee, the Union of Conscientious Objectors, and the Peace Union of Finland. Churches have also been traditionally involved. In the 1970s came the environmental movement and development cooperation organisations. Opponents of globalisation linked up with the cause of peace in the 1990s.
Previously key supporters of the peace movement have included the parties of the left - especially their youth organisations - as well as trade unions. Now the situation has changed: peace activists say that the Social Democrats, and especially the trade unions, have been surprisingly silent. Their role in the Finnish action against the war has been negligible, even though the umbrella organisation of European trade unions was active in campaigning against the war.
Litmanen feels that the Social Democrats and the trade unions have actually distanced themselves somewhat from the peace movement. One reason could be the elections. The war was one of the election themes, and Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen was accused of siding with the United States. Litmanen says that the SDP - the largest party in the government - had, in fact, denounced the war, but they had difficulties in disengaging from their role in the government enough to give the peace movement their active support.
Litmanen says that the ties between the trade unions and the peace movement weakened already in the 1990s when the peace groups were at a low ebb.
Another reason for the distance might be the stature of the critics of globalisation in the peace movement. The Social Democrats and the trade unions see many good sides to globalisation. Opposition to globalisation raises tensions between the old-time leftists and young activists. Tensions are also caused by the fact that young people no longer hate the USA in the way that many of the old-timers do.

Middle-aged and middle-class people have now joined the Finnish peace marches. This is a new phenomenon. Litmanen says that they have usually not been involved in anti-globalisation protests, even if they are aware of the fickle nature of the mechanisms of the global economy - for instance, when they have to worry about keeping a job.
"The peace movement now offers an opportunity to express views both about the justification of war, and of global developments", Litmanen says.
He feels that the peace education and international studies at schools offer one explanation for the interest shown by young people in the peace demonstrations. There is also an emphasis on moral and ethical issues and questions of peace at Finnish schools in both religious education and in ethics classes - the secular alternative offered at Finnish schools for non-religious pupils. "There is no need to ask why young people are so passive in social issues", Litmanen says.
Not all of those attending peace marches are pacifists. Some say they oppose this war, but might approve of war under different circumstances.
The war in Kosovo, the genocide in Rwanda, and the fighting in Chechnya are conflicts that have not brought the people out to the streets, although the core of the peace movement has campaigned against them as well. A mass movement is born only when the people see the situation as a threat to global order. Activism is also increased if conflicts appear among the political elite of the world, and Litmanen points out that this has happened now.

Many people join peace marches for emotional reasons, and Litmanen sees nothing wrong with that. "People constantly hear comments that they should not give in to emotions, and that things should be resolved in a cool and rational manner. However, emotions are linked with morality, and violations of the moral order raise great emotions."
Litmanen points out that the so-called market forces also react to war emotionally - with anxiety and fear.
He sees an element of moral indignation in opposition to the war in Iraq. Decades have been spent looking for ways to resolve conflicts peacefully. Litmanen says that now these methods are being walked over with iron boots.
There is also an element of sympathy for the victims of the war, and concern about models being set for future generations. How is a parent supposed to teach children that it is not right to hit another person, when adults resort to weapons? The whole foundation of bringing up children crumbles.
There is also an element of disappointment in leading politicians. It turns out that the end of the Cold War did not make the world into a better place. It did not bring peace.
Litmanen is somewhat surprised that the peace movement has found new popularity at a time when opinion polls show that the Finnish people are giving all their support to the police, the Defence Forces, and the maintenance of public order.
Actually the peace movement is not in conflict with these. Perhaps it is all a question of a desire for security.

In certain situations the great powers can use the peace movement for their own ends, as the Soviet Union did when it supported protests against the United States. Individual demonstrators became pawns in a game between the great powers.
At its best, Litmanen feels that the peace movement can support political decision-makers in difficult questions.
Political leaders also feel uncertain when considering when there has been enough understanding and the violence can start. Political rhetoric often hides feelings of doubt.
Risto Isomäki, who has been organising the boycott campaign, believes that the peace movement can create pressure to make military forces use more effort to avert civilian casualties. Isomäki believes that political pressures on the governments of the countries involved in the war are great, especially among US allies.
The campaign would probably continue even if the war were to come to an end now; the purpose of a continued boycott would be to protest against the methods used by the United States. The peace movement has sometimes been criticised for only reacting to war, and not human rights abuses.
In addition to the peace movement, economics is another major factor in opposing war. Although some make money on destruction and reconstruction, war is always expensive - and not only for the countries directly involved. In times of uncertainty the economy stagnates. Nobody dares make investments, and stock market prices plummet.
It is as if economic decision-makers were staging a sit-down strike!
"Market forces react to war, but what is the political message? Don't make war - it's bad for business?" Litmanen ponders