Where's the peace movement when you need it?

Abstract

The opportunity to remake U.S. foreign and military policy—and indeed the entire international system—has never been better, partly because of groundwork done by the strong peace movements in the United States and Western Europe during the 1980s. Just when the chances and challenges for peace activism in the United States are the greatest, however, the peace movement approaches a historic low point in its strength and visibility. Just when the mass public and even policymakers may be ready to listen to the arguments peace activists have been making for the last four decades, those activists are having an increasingly difficult time formulating policy, agreeing with each other, and, perhaps most significant, winning mainstream public attention. This paradox, the virtual absence of peace activists from both the circles of policymaking and the front pages at the time when they would be most likely to have influence, is a riddle that sits at the center of effective activist politics. More than that, at a time when the contours of foreign policy are remarkably fluid, the absence of peace movement influence may be costly for the decades to come. If we do not shape policy, someone else will. In a recent issue of European Dialogue, Pat Chilton lamented U.S. peace activists’ apparent willingness to fiddle “while Europe burns,” reflecting, reevaluating, writing books, or floating to new issues, even as the threat of war that mobilized millions has given way to real fighting wars on the European continent and elsewhere. On this side of the Atlantic, I see much the same fragmented and dispirited movement she described—but also something more: the difficulties of generating attention and political mobilization in the post‐Cold War era. In order to figure out how to overcome today's obstacles, we need to look back briefly at the challenges and responses of the past.