|
JOINT REPORT TO THE IFC AND USLAW
ON THE 2007 MANILA
INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE,
APRIL 27-29
ISSUED BY SAMIR ADIL, PRESIDENT OF THE
IFC, AND BOB MUEHLENKAMP, CO-CONVENOR, USLAW
The 2007 International Peace conference
was held in Manila from April 27-29. It was hosted by the Japanese
National Assembly for Peace and Democracy (ZENKO) and Parents and
Children Against War and Violence in the Philippines (MALAPAD KA).
Over 100 delegates from 5 countries: the Philippines, Iraq, Japan,
the U.S., and Indonesia attended; the largest delegation was from
Japan.
Samir Adil represented the IFC and Bob
Muehlenkamp represented USLAW at the Conference.
The goals of the conference were:
-
To increase
international solidarity to end the war in Iraq
-
To increase
international solidarity in support of the IFC as the
organization working for a non-sectarian, non-religious,
non-nationalist government, and a peaceful, civil society in
Iraq
-
To end the
so-called “War on terror”
-
To raise money
and assist in the programming of SANA, the satellite TV station
recently launched by the IFC
After 2 days of considerable debate, the
Conference issued the attached Resolution, which has 5 main points:
-
To build
international support to end the war in Iraq now, and if the war
is not ended by September, 2007, to join in international peace
protests in September.
-
To support the
IFC as the leading voice in Iraq struggling for a non-sectarian,
civil society, including the building and uniting of independent
unions.
-
To strengthen
the ties between the IFC and anti-war organizations around the
world, uniting with those in the U.S., particularly with United
for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and USLAW.
-
To stop the
so-called “war n terror” which is being used an excuse around
the world to suspend civil liberties, to place the social and
economic needs of working families in secondary priority, and to
suppress movements for political and economic change, especially
those in the Philippines.
-
To struggle in
common against the world-wide neo-liberal policies which make it
impossible to meet the needs of families and children for peace
and security and a better way of life.
The main issues in the debate were:
-
Should we say
that the international peace movement is “determining”
international policies on the war in Iraq and the war on terror,
or is that too strong a statement?
Some delegates
from the Philippines, based on their own experience with the
Arroyo government using the soc-called “war on terror” as an
excuse to suppress movements for change, including the
“extra-judicial” murder in the last 4 years of 842 civilians,
did not think the peace movement is having more than minimal
effect on stopping the war.
Other delegates
pointed out that democracy works differently in different
countries, and that the peace movement was decisive in Spain and
Italy and other countries in leaving Iraq and in forcing the UK
government to announce it will be leaving. In the U.S. we made
it clear that while polls and the 2006 election show that a
strong majority of Americans oppose this war and want it ended,
only a broad based, unified, and well organized peace movement
will focus that political pressure on the Congress, the
President, and in the upcoming elections and bring an end to the
war.
The wording was kept.
-
Some Delegates
from the Philippines initially expressed concern about referring
to the second enemy in Iraq as “political Islam” because it
might feed “Islamphobia.” Samir made it clear that every poll
shows that over 80% of people in Iraq oppose the political
violence against civilians and want a secular non-religious
government and that “political Islam” is now accepted in Iraq as
a way to clarify the distinction between those who practice a
religion and those who want to impose an interpretation of that
religion on everyone through political means, including violence
against civilians.
For us, these were the most important
results of the conference:
-
Presentations
from the Philippines, Iraq, and the U.S. made it dramatically
clear that while the conditions of working families are
obviously vastly different in all 3 countries, what they have in
common is a deterioration of the living conditions of working
families, all caused by the same “neo-liberal” and, in some
cases, “neo-conservative” policies. All of us share the common
goal of changing these policies.
-
Samir’s report
made it clear that events are moving in 2 different directions
in Iraq. The U.S. occupation and the violence of political
Islam continue to make life worse for people. At the same time
the IFC is gaining support because, at least for now, people
want a “third option,” i.e., a way to achieve a civil society
without the American occupation.
For us in the
U.S. this is very important. The American people want the war
ended but they are being confronted with only 2 options: Bush’s
war and the violence of political Islam. The IFC offers a third
alternative: a non-sectarian, civil society that rejects
political Islam’s violence and goal of a government based on a
fundamentalist interpretation of a religion. We in the U.S.
should be clearer about these 3 options and, in supporting the
third option, should call on the peace movement in the U.S. to
support the IFC as the key to a post-war Iraq.
-
The Conference
called on the international peace movement to support the Non
Defense Locality (Peace Zone) movement as one important way to
create a non-militarized world.
-
It became very
clear in the course of the discussion on the main resolution
that all countries are suffering from the 2 enemies Samir
identified in Iraq: the U.S. occupation and war on terror and
political Islam. In order to deal with the second, we must
first deal with the first. We must end the occupation. And we
must end the Bush so-called “war on terror,” which is serving as
an excuse to threaten civil rights and crowds out all other
political discussion, making it impossible to advance policies
and spend money based on the urgent needs of working families.
-
The great focus
of the Conference on the rights and conditions of children and
the need for “Welfare not Warfare” emphasized how important it
is to end this war and end it now.
-
SANA, the IFC’s
newly launched satellite TV station should be supported by USLAW
and the peace movement both financially and with program
assistance. So far the Japanese peace movement has raised all
of the $400,000 in the initial budget for SANA.
Perhaps the most important message to
come out of the Conference is for the people of Iraq to know that
they are not alone, that they too have allies who support their
efforts to build a non-sectarian society, allies who share and
support their dreams for a better life for them and for their
children. |
Samir Adil
President of Iraq Freedom Congress
|
