John Howard’s luck has run out. Already floundering in the polls, he now has to prepare for one of the most unpopular US presidents ever—the man responsible for almost a million deaths in Iraq, and thousands more in Afghanistan—to visit Sydney for the APEC conference.

The “war on terror”, with its “front line” in Iraq, has been a central plank of Howard's strategy since 2001. From the khaki election during the invasion of Afghanistan, to the passage of anti-terrorism legislation alongside the unpopular WorkChoices, Howard has used the war to divide and distract opposition.

The federal election will be held a matter of weeks after APEC. Once Howard might have hoped hosting the summit would boost his government’s popularity, promoting his “experience” and presenting himself as a strong statesman with standing on the world stage.

But the occupation of Iraq is in deep crisis. Its puppet government is coming apart at the seams as support for the war and for George Bush slumps in the United States. Afghanistan too is looking increasingly un-winnable. Civilian casualties are piling up as the US leads a relentless bombing campaign. Support for the resistance is growing. Howard’s use of the so-called war on terror to fear-monger at home is also faltering, illustrated by the public outcry over the unjust treatment of Dr Haneef.

A large demonstration at APEC will focus attention on Howard’s unpopular role backing George Bush’s wars. Iraq is a serious liability for Howard. It symbolises his record of lies and dishonesty. The APEC demonstration can help make Iraq and the “war on terror” one of the issues that builds the momentum to kick Howard out of office at the election.

A groundswell against the war is also badly needed to pressure Rudd to deliver real change if elected. Rudd has publicly attacked Howard over Iraq and promised to withdraw Australian troops. But the details of his policy are heavily qualified.

Rudd plans to keep 1000 troops in and around Iraq and withdraw only 500. And the withdrawal will only take place after negotiations with the US. He want the troops to finish their current stay in Iraq and then complete another “rotation” of six months, so that troops will remain there for almost another year. And Rudd is also a firm supporter of the occupation in Afghanistan as well as the “terror laws” that have accompanied the wars in the Middle East. To symbolise this, he will meet George Bush during APEC, as he met Dick Cheney when he visited in February, to reassure him of Labor’s support for the “war on terror”.

The NSW state Labor government is joining Howard in trying to keep people off the streets during APEC, introducing draconian police powers and scare-mongering about “violent protest”. A real challenge to the logic of the “war on terror” requires a stronger anti-war movement on the streets to pressure whoever wins the election to break with the war. It is vital that we stand up against intimidation and come out to protest in large numbers at APEC to start making that a reality.

Standing up for our right to protest

Another reason to protest at APEC is to make sure we still have the right to protest at all.

The state government, police and the media have combined to make people think the APEC protest will be violent and dangerous to attend. The NSW Labor government has introduced extreme new police powers. Police have refused to guarantee that the main protest will be allowed to march along its announced route.

This is a serious attack on the right to protest. The police are asserting their ability to ban protests from most of the city. If this succeeds, it will set the tone for further and more serious attacks on the right to demonstrate. Whatever happens, the Stop Bush Coalition organising the protest has decided that the major demonstration will go ahead.

If thousands of people stand up to this intimidation campaign and come out in defence of our right to protest and dissent, police will have no choice but to stand back and allow the protest march to go ahead. That is the lesson from previous attempts to remove the right to protest. Thirty years ago when Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen banned street marches altogether, the right to protest was won back by a campaign which defied the ban. If 5000 people protest at APEC, police will not be able to stop a street march or act in a heavy-handed fashion.

It is clear that the police have been entirely unreasonable in their response to the protest. The protest organisers have declared their intention to organise a non-violent action, and even compromised so that the march does not attempt to go to the summit venue at the Opera House.

Police tried these intimidation tactics earlier this year during the visit of US Vice President Dick Cheney. Police made a last minute snap decision to prevent an anti-war demonstration from marching. In a crackdown on the right to protest, a total of 15 people were arrested. This response to protests during Cheney’s visit was widely seen as a trial run for anti-APEC protests.

But police have not gotten away with this behaviour. Seven out of eight of those who were arrested had their charges dismissed by the courts. The eighth had two of three charges dismissed and got a good behaviour bond for the third.

These court victories show that police cannot attack the right to dissent and get away with it. Standing up to the intimidation by exercising our democratic right to protest during APEC can ensure that these scare tactics fail again.