In the course of 2001 and 2002 grassroots activists and organisations from across the world built a movement that was to take on enormous global resonance. Sparking some of the largest demonstrations and moments of civil disobedience witnessed in the last century, the “anti-war” or “peace” movement was a broad front, divided just as much as it was united around opposition to a US led invasion of Iraq, and to some extent the continued colonization and occupation of Palestine. The movement was diverged from the beginning over the roots of the issue, visions of alternatives, of forms of resistance and alliances with liberal and bourgeois political forces.

Yet, the spirit of mass meetings, sit-ins and demonstrations in the run up to and immediate aftermath of the invasion, imbued a stirring belief in the power of popular and social struggles to confront US-led imperialism and unravel the integration of war and violence within neo-liberal economics and the discourse of “development”. This forged enthusiasm amongst activists – woven into a wider euphoria around anti-globalization and progressive struggles – which has turned into increasing despondency four years on. Despite some important victories in Italy and Spain and growing grassroots support in the US, the effectiveness of the anti-war movement is uneven, leaving many to question whether it can posit a serious challenge to state terror, occupation and neo-liberalism.

March 2007 marks the fourth anniversary of Iraq’s invasion and the continuing and bloody US led occupation. In June comes the 40th year of occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. On a global level, new “anti-terror” legislation in numerous states has created unprecedented attacks on the liberties won by popular movements and civil struggles over the last 100 years. Governments play upon fear and anxiety, whip up xenophobia and Islamaphobia and use Al-Qa'ida and Islamic militancy, in forging “anti-terror” polices, the mechanisms of which are designed to quell internal dissent.

Iran we are told could be the target of a fresh attack while the global media seems to have erased the sufferings of Afghanistan, a country invaded (again) in 2001 and in which current “development” is quietly moulded to the terms of the international financial institutions (IFIs) and their backers in the west.

At a time when anti-war movements need to be strong and effective, they have (bar in the US) contracted since 2003. Today such activism is locked in a struggle to maintain not only relevance but also continued popular support and direction from the ground, which itself was responsible for the vast reach of anti-war activities in 2003. Increasingly, the core issues plaguing the overall movement since its emergence come into focus, notably how we define the overriding goals and objectives. Is anti-war activism woven into the fabric of a wider social and political revolution, and if so does it move beyond the parameters of militarisation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine? Does it identify the relations between war and neo-liberalism and if so align itself to struggles working towards some kind of broader transformation? Are anti-war movements to operate in similar structures to new social movements, particularly those popularly viewed as moving beyond traditional leftist forms of organising and if so how can we ensure they are not dominated or usurped by those who use them as ideological fronts for political parties or vanguard projects? And ultimately it begs the question as to what kind of peace – and thus transformation from war - does the movement strive for.

The World Social Forum (WSF), now in its seventh year, is widely hailed as one centre of resistance and opposition to neo-liberalism, imperialism and aggression. After the latest meeting in Kenya, reflections on anti-war struggles and their relations with broader justice groups can focus on ensuring the movement does not disperse into a pale shadow of its former self.

Up to 50,000 delegates from various social movements, struggles and NGOs converged upon Nairobi, from the 20th to the 25th of January. Hundreds of workshops, meetings, discussions and panels discussed important and pressing issues. Progressive groups from across the world – many of whom link their own struggles to anti-war movements – were represented in numbers. Networks of solidarity were renewed or established, ideas and visions exchanged and skills and experiences shared. However, the prevailing mood at the end of the week was one of disappointment.

Activists pointed to the “NGO-ization” of the conference, particularly evident in the presence of northern groups with significant funding, and the appropriation of the currents of the WSF away from radical alternatives and into co-option with the political and economic systems many wish it to oppose. Organizations with money flocked into the conference, disseminating their propaganda in the buzz of social activism which has become its own fashion industry in recent years. Meanwhile, local Kenyans were shut out, unable to afford registration costs to the WSF, leaving others to discuss their “development” and poverty. Furthermore, the majority of Iraqi delegates were not granted visas and could not discuss their occupation. Private companies were given exclusive contracts to provide commercial services at the forum with overpriced food and drink leaving a bitter taste for the activists who could afford to pay.

Such was the frustration that the forum’s main constituency, the social movements, adopted a resolution in their assembly condemning the increased privatization, commodification and militarisation of WSF space. And while Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan surfaced in debates – and were central to some of the meetings held – the forum failed to be galvanized by the ongoing war crimes committed against people throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The anti-war assembly passed important resolutions and featured a handful of passionate speeches against the militarisation and role of surrogates in Africa. Yet, the meeting was sparsely attended and void of the creative and rousing spirit associated with such activism. Moreover, while one cannot argue with the sentiment of the resolutions, many of the motions focused on condemnation or symbolic rejection of crimes, and did not specify alternatives or actions to be taken other than continuing to demonstrate and oppose. More annual rallies which call for an end to the occupation can be important, but when set as the focal point of campaign work appear like an automated response that opposes everything US led imperialism creates without taking the movement beyond another march.

It is in this context that global Palestine activism differed, having become marked over the last 2 years with a clear strategy that embraces a variety of tactics for solidarity campaigners to get involved in. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli occupation and apartheid were the topic of various seminars and discussions and both social movement and anti-war assemblies endorsed the Palestinian call for BDS. While such solidarity work has and will continue to encounter problems – notably from self-professed “peace” groups and individuals who do not support the rights of all Palestinians – BDS has provided a central point for global activism which has a useful precedent in the anti-apartheid movement against the erstwhile regime in South Africa. Workshops and meetings on the boycott were in evidence in Nairobi, more than in previous social forums and other struggles extended their support to boycott initiatives in the understanding that Palestine encapsulates more than just a military occupation but operates within the dynamics of neo-liberalism, “development” economics and global capital and in which oppressed peoples from across the world make their parallels.

It is here, in the links between neo-liberalism, occupation and war where future solidarity with Iraq and Afghanistan will be determined and in which the US led project for political control, resource management and “good governance” will determine and be determined by opposition and resistance. When the WSF meets again in 2009, as well as retaking the space from those groups who would wish to ride the current of the WSF to pursue “development” agendas that distract activists from core issues, the anti-war movement will be confronted by a situation in which remedies will be pursued in Iraq in order to “stabilise” and “develop” the country. Based upon the particular economic logic of the World Bank and IMF, such development has already been rejected by Palestinians under occupation. Meanwhile, Africans will be have to confront the spread of the terrain of conflict onto the continent as the US military, industrial complex becomes entwined with the need for oil. The new scramble for Africa, the title of one conference meeting, highlighted the need to a broader focus as anti-war movements take on neo-colonialism dressed up in the language of development discourse.

In terms of Palestine solidarity the next forum will need to focus not on what BDS strategies are, but on what impact they have attained, the sharing of skills and experiences and reporting back on how such actions can achieve global significance. A greater space for structured convergence and discussion at the WSF will be of use not only to BDS activism, but could give new meaning to the forum and the anti-war movement, moving towards increased global strategy building within the different assembly resolutions.

The WSF like the anti-war movement is made up of socially and politically heterogeneous bodies and groups, a characteristic which should be defended and in which we all find similarities and solidarity from different communities and struggles. However, to retain the space of the WSF as one in which effective resistance can be forged and to ensure the anti war movement can be visionary as well as opposed to war crimes, it requires some parameters to be drawn. That framework, inevitably ideological, recognises how the current trends of neo-liberalism and capital fuel the war, aggression and terror which the majority of us oppose and will look to replace with a peace based upon justice and the implementation of rights for all.

This article is taken from is taken from a forthcoming issue of the Khanya journal.