back to notes

Neutrality doesn't cut it any more

March 24, 2003 | Globe & mail | Lysiane Gagnon
If there were 200,000 antiwar demonstrators in Montreal on Saturday, as the organizers claim, well then, there are 20 persons camping in my living room. I was there, and my guess is that the "official" number should be reduced by a factor of 10.

Assessing crowds in Montreal is a dicey game. For years, the Montreal police have refused to evaluate the size of demonstrations -- a result of too many heated quarrels with various militant groups -- leaving reporters to their own devices to provide an independent assessment. There are several ways of evaluating a crowd, all iffy, but these days many media seem satisfied to blindly repeat the organizers' numbers.

Canadian Press, the French CBC radio, as well as English CBC TV, cited the 200,000 figure. French CBC TV, more reasonably, talked of "tens of thousands."

In any case, there would be nothing surprising if the antiwar movement was losing a bit of steam. It was fine to be against this badly inspired, counterproductive war before it began. But now that it's under way, what should we do? Should we side with Saddam Hussein's Iraq against the United States and Great Britain, as so many antiwar protesters seem to argue? (This is at least the drift of their slogans, since the only villains in the portrait are George W. Bush and Tony Blair.)

I remember the Vietnam years. Most antiwar demonstrators at that time were on the side of the Vietcong. This was a sensible position, since what was at stake in Vietnam was a fight for national liberation. But Saddam Hussein is not Ho Chi Minh, and rare are the Iraqis who wouldn't feel relieved at seeing him go. The best thing one can hope for, now that it's too late to stop this war, is that Saddam Hussein's regime will crumble as soon as possible.

Or maybe we should stay neutral, as does the Canadian government. But does neutrality make sense? Do we really believe that there is no difference between Saddam Hussein and George Bush? Between a bloody tyranny and a great liberal democracy that also happens to be our closest neighbour and long-time ally, not to mention Great Britain and Australia, whose political values we share?

I was against this war, for many reasons. I still believe it's a very bad idea. But I certainly know which side I am on, when push comes to shove.

There was no need for Canada to contribute militarily to a war it did not approve. (In any case, who needs our aged, crash-prone helicopters?) But Canada could help in other ways. For instance, Alberta has some of the world's best experts in extinguishing oil-field fires. Why are they not already in Iraq?

In all the antiwar demonstrations that have taken place, I have yet to see a single placard condemning Saddam Hussein. All the anger seems to be exclusively directed at President Bush. (Okay, on Saturday I saw one poster that attacked the Iraqi leader. He was portrayed as one of the three worst war criminals in history, alongside Hitler and George Bush. So President Bush equals Hitler? My God, do these people know what the Nazis were like?)

There is actually a quick, simple and bloodless way to end this war. If Saddam Hussein and his retinue went into exile, the American offensive would instantly stop.

If the antiwar demonstrators really wanted peace now, it's on the Iraqi regime that they should put pressure. Why don't they protest, for a change, in front of the Iraqi embassy? lgagnon@lapresse.ca