Success of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Great Britain in 1968 - Essay Example

How do you explain the success of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Great Britain in 1968?  The social protest movements aiming to facilitate nuclear disarmament in Great Britain relied heavily on transnational awareness and support on the issue (Klimke, Scharloth, 2012). Its success can be largely attributed to the fact that it transcended the level of national particularity and addressed the subject of nuclear disarmament from a global perspective, as an issue that concerns people across countries. Thus, it changed the very definition of citizenship and introduced the unprecedented concept of global citizenry wherein people from diverse backgrounds could come together to voice their dissent against a common cause. The strength of the movement lay also in the fact that it moved past the politics of the Cold War despite being temporally located in the heyday of this ideological and military struggle between the two power blocs. The democratizing potential of this is apparent since it brought the world together in movement that was humanitarian and anti-authoritarian at the same time (Frey, 2008). In fact, the basic objective of the movement was to abstain from siding with the ideology of either superpower. It is perhaps also significant that this moment coincided with the era of decolonization across the world where erstwhile colonized nations unwilling to compromise their sovereignty by aligning with Euro-American powers voiced their support for the cause of nuclear disarmament. It is important to note that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Great Britain far from being a sporadic movement had firm roots in the origin of the Cold War where several “international pacifists” who had organized strategic protests against the atomic bomb (Klimke 2012). The movement in Great Britain may thus be viewed as a successful culmination of the many efforts aimed at disarmament. 2. What role has internet played in the anti-Iraq war protest? The protest against the Iraq War, much like its precedent, the Nuclear Disarmament movement, was based in international cooperation. The protest also witnessed the extensive of use an entirely new medium of expression-the internet. The internet had certain obvious advantages over the more traditional methods of voicing dissent-it could bring together people and their opinions on a common platform without necessitating physical movement over long distances and significantly, authoritarian censorship is more difficult to impose on the internet than in protest marches and demonstrations. Pickerill and Webster in their essay “The Anti-War/Peace Movement in Britain and the Conditions of Information War” discussing the idea of “Information War” which denotes both “weaponry” which makes use of computer technology for greater precision in combat and attack, as well as the “symbolic realm” where ideas and images are employed to convey specifically targeted meaning. While the intensity of casualties rose steadily in war propelled by the “microelectronics revolution,” this also meant that there was extensive media coverage of the war which in turn conferred onto people the knowledge hitherto denied them to generate anti-war sentiments (408-10, n.d.). It is interesting to note that unlike most of its predecessors, the anti-Iraq War movement did not cease to operate after the ostensible end of the war and continued to protest in the subsequent years against the insidious ways in which military occupation and economic depletion have perpetuated Western control over Iraq’s political freedom. This too was perhaps made possible because of the internet which kept the memory of the war through the many blogs and websites which advertise their cause in numerous pages that an average internet user is likely to visit. Pickerill and Webster however warn against the debilitating effects of using the internet for anti-war protest as well as they argue that the sweeping generalizations on the internet often assume a homogeneous readership, eliding thereby the ideological specificity through which an individual may oppose war (418-19, n.d.). 3. “Smart activists don’t do street protest’, they argue. Direct action (civil disobedience, blockage, sit-ins, etc.) is the way forward.” Though it is widely believed that participation in protest marches and demonstrations does not necessarily lead to a praxis oriented involvement for bringing about concrete socio-political changes, it may be well said that protest marches continue to have definite persuasive worth, as has been demonstrated in the success of many contemporary anti-war protests. Protest movements believe in peaceful demonstrations ideologically and for the sake of pragmatism. In the case of anti-war protests, they are staged with the specific purpose of opposing war and violence. It would thus be counterproductive to use any form of violence, overt or latent to counter war. Furthermore, civil disobedience would not only disrupt the smooth functioning of a city but more importantly, would pose to the participants the threat of legal consequences or even arrest. Thus, rather than mobilizing greater participation in social movements, acts of civil disobedience may deter people from voicing their opinions and may render an otherwise politically active citizen apolitical for the fear of the law. To expect the common man to act without caring for his safety is both utopian and impractical. Though the activists on “Plane Stupid” have argued that “"If you look at the number of people who marched against Iraq, if you'd had 1% of that number taking direct action, they could have physically stopped the war” the success of mass movements in the context of the nuclear disarmament cause in 1968 and the anti-Iraq War protests in 2003 is undeniable. The means of protest advocated by the proponents of civil disobedience may result in a self-destructive movement with the protestors facing legal charges and the administration of the nation coming to a standstill. Thus, just as for war, mass protests continue to have relevance also for other issues such as the anti-cut and tax avoidance movement (Aitkenhead 2008). 4. Is the case for mass demonstration made by the Socialist Worker article convincing? If not, why?  The arguments made in favour of mass demonstrations made by the Socialist Worker article and Alex Snowdon in Counterfire are both convincing and factually substantiated. It is important that the Socialist Worker article begins with a reference to Ian McEwan’s fiction, stating that the reason why the author chooses the plot of the 2003 anti-war protest for his novel reflects how deeply ingrained the movement is in public memory. Snowdon argues that historically Britain’s involvement in wars has met with a great support from the masses, citing the example of the Falkland war, which was the chief cause for Margaret Thatcher’s electoral victory in 1982. It was thus the widespread nature of the anti-war movement during the Iraq War that mobilized ample opinions against Britain’s involvement in to bring about palpable political changes such as the early removal of Tony Blair from his office. Snowdon also attributes to the anti-war protest the cause behind the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq while American forces continued to be stationed there. Moreover, he refers also to the incident of Israel’s attack on Lebanon where Tony Blair chose to not call for a ceasefire. Snowdon points out that the Stop the War organization prepared a large group for exerting pressure on the government to change its mind, resulting in Blair’s allies withdrawing their political support (2011). It thus changes the notion that protest movements can only change opinions without actually bringing about any concrete political change. Furthermore, he adds that the large-scale protests against the Iraq War and its aftereffects also helped dispel Islamophobia in the Western world, a widespread prejudice that had been for long used to inflict and justify war against Islamic majority nations. Enumerating the numerous ways in which the movement opposed not merely war but also all forms of undemocratic coercion such as detention without trial, the political scheme “Prevent” which aimed at the marginalization of the Islamic communities within the nation and so on (Callinicos 2005). Works Cited Klimke, M. (2012). “1968: Europe in Technicolor.” The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History. Stone, Dan, ed. UK: Oxford UP. Frey, M. (2008). “The International Peace Movement.” 1968 in Europe: a History of Protest and Activism, 1956-1977. Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, eds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pickerill, J.; Webster, F. “The Anti-War/Peace Movement in Britain and the Conditions of Information War.” [WWW] Available from http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/geography/documents/folder/International%20Relations%202006%20.pdf. [Accessed 12/8/2013]. Snowdon, Alex. “A mass movement we can learn from: the record of Stop the War.” Counterfire. Tuesday, 15 February 2011. 17:36. [WWW] Available from http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/10215-a-mass-movement-we-can-learn-from-the-record-of-stop-the-war. [Accessed 12/8/2013]. Callinicos, Alex. “Anti-war protests do make a difference.” Sat 19 Mar 2005, 00:00 GMT. Issue No. 1943. [WWW] Available from http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/5932/Anti-war+protests+do+make+a+difference. [Accessed 12/8/2013]. Aitkenhead, Decca. The Guardian, Saturday 31 May 2008. [WWW] Available from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/31/activists.prisonsandprobation. [Accessed 12/8/2013]. Read More