The History That Peace Made - Part 5

"It looks like poets will always have their work cut out for them."

Wislawa Szymborska, I Don't Know: The 1996 Noble Lecture.

The heroic will of ordinary citizens in the global community, the restrained fury of poets and artists and disillusioned veterans, and the dark prophecies of statesmen and world leaders combined to form a single unified demand for peace on Valentine's Day weekend 2003. For all the rumors of war and undisputed preparations for war, it was peace that launched its campaign to conquer the imagination and direct the activities of humanity, kicking off on Friday, February 14, what would build into a truly epic push for peace when 220,000 people in Melbourne, Australia, would make clear their rejection of the proposed war (and their own government's endorsement of the same). This number, as with the 500,000 that made Washington, D.C., their own on January 18, was by itself sufficient enough to populate several small towns. Had these marchers for peace constituted the sum total of the resistance to war that was to take place over the three-day period, it in all probability would have been assigned a minor mention (if that) in evening news broadcasts and then forgotten.

As it was, those who led the way on Friday would find their ranks multiplied to an unprecedented degree as legions joined them on one continent after another. In short, before the weekend's conclusion, more than 8,000,000 human beings would take to the streets in more than 600 cities in 60 countries around the world. This miraculous declaration of humanity's love for peace in the face of combat cut across boundaries of race, religion, class, gender, and language.

Although it is impossible to account for every single body at every single site of protest, even the more conservative estimates are staggering to a point approaching disbelief. In most cities of the United States from sea to shining sea where citizens demonstrated against the war, like that of the 2,000 who raised banners in Detroit, Michigan, and the 5,000 who rose to the occasion in Dallas, Texas. Even more commanding were the 90,000 strong that turned out for Los Angeles and the 300,000 that flooded First, Second, and Third Avenues in New York City. To the south of the United States, Mexico City added 30,000 to the tally. And to the north, some 25,000 presented themselves as champions for peace in Vancouver and another 100,000 in Montreal.

Messages extolling the advantages of peace over the ravages of war were repeated frequently and loud enough across the North American continent on Saturday, February 15, that the efforts of North Americans alone would have marked the day as an exceptional one in world history. However, those demonstrations represented what might be described as a single knuckle on the larger fist of unity raised globally for all the world to see. As far away as Cape Town and Johannesburg in South Africa, 40,000 waved flags denouncing the ascendancy of the grim reaper. Another 2,000 cried out for peace in Israel's Tel Aviv and 5,000 in Tokyo, Japan, all on the same Saturday in February for the same reason.

But it was across the expanses of Europe and Great Britain that the collective candles of hope burned brightest and strongest on February 15. No less than 1,500,000 people crowded out the squares of Piccadilly Circus and Hyde Park in London, an astoundingly audible rejection of their prime minister's participation in the planned invasion of Iraq. And in Glasgow, Scotland, 90,000 more added their voices to the steadily-rising tide of joyful peace-filled dissent.

Spain logged in with 600,000 protesters in Madrid and more than 1,000,000 in Barcelona. Amsterdam, Stockholm, Brussels, and Berlin all brought 500,000 each to this international peace festival. And it may have been as fitting as it was undoubtedly unnerving that in Rome, some 2,000,000 human beings pledged their dedication to the principles and powers of nonviolence as applicable to the approaching war.

Just when it seemed at the end of the day on February 15, 2003, that all the fireworks of the world's passion for peace were dying down, they blazed to life again on Sunday, February 16. The streets of San Francisco had been reserved the previous day for the city's annual observance of the Chinese New Year, ushering in with drums and golden dragons the Year of the Sheep. On Sunday, the festivities gave way to 150,000 demonstrators in what was hailed as an extraordinary encore to the events of Friday and Saturday. Moreover, joining San Francisco's encore was another in Sydney, Australia, where 500,000 more hopefuls doubled the number that had started the proceedings in Melbourne on Friday.

The estimated 8,000,000 people who demanded of the world, from February 14 to February 16, that peace be given a chance were a lot more difficult to ignore than other events leading up to the historical occasion and every major television network provided extended coverage of the worldwide phenomenon. That the world community had spoken so voluminously and unambiguously through so many made it easy to believe that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines moving toward Baghdad would soon receive orders to execute an about face. It appeared the most indisputably intelligent and democratic course of action available. Only it never happened. History, under the guidance of those clamoring for war, took the road so often traveled in the past.

Statements from the White House regarding the overwhelming strength of the peace movement were at best patronizing; and at worst, patronizing. They acknowledged that the right to assembly - guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the United States and in many other countries by their constitutions and bills of human rights - was a wonderful, and perhaps amusing, thing to behold. It was pointed out that such an activity was not guaranteed in Iraq and could result in imprisonment or death for those attempting to exercise it. And it was further made clear that such demonstrations, despite the good intentions behind them, were erroneous insofar as their political applications and implications were concerned. The message that came through more than any other was that millions of children had successfully thrown their tantrums and should now be put quietly to bed. Democracy as practiced in the United States during the early part of 2003 had become, apparently, much more a matter of bending and disregarding the will of the people than representing or expressing it.

If the bodies and souls of 8,000,000 people were not sufficient to sway national policy on war against Iraq, what, then, was the meaning of such a massive uprising? Was it truly a matter of nothing more than overgrown misinformed juveniles venting fear and frustration as implied by White House officials? Could it have been part of a terrorist counter-tactic to weaken the United States' war plans? Or was the international character of the movement an indication of a new form of global democracy evolving out of the fellowship established between like-minded individuals over the Internet?

It may be that the best answer to the meaning of February 14-16, 2003, was offered by the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, Dr. Robert Muller, later chancellor emeritus of the University of Peace in Costa Rico. Addressing an assembly a month after the massive demonstrations in San Francisco, Dr. Muller observed of the millions marching all over earth that, "This is what waging peace looks like. No matter what happens, history will record that this is a new era, and the twenty-first century has been initiated with the world in a global dialogue looking deeply, profoundly and responsibly as a global community at the legitimacy of the actions of a nation that is desperate to go to war. Through these global peace-waging efforts, the leaders of that nation are being engaged in further dialogue, forcing them to rethink, and allowing all nations to participate in the serious and horrific decision to go to war or not."

He may have added that these gallant warriors of nonviolence were doing something their countrymen who controlled the popular media had clearly refused to do: they were making peace visible. And by accomplishing that, despite the roar of death and destruction well underway, they succeeded, for a time, in making peace real.