THE war on Iraq was illegal, immoral and devastating. In the region of half a million people died. Many thousands more suffered from, and often died from, preventable diseases, from the impact of cluster bombs and from cancers caused by radiation poisoning from depleted uranium munitions. 

That the British government took us into that war on the basis of a tissue of lies demonstrates the extraordinary moral bankruptcy of our political system. 

President George W Bush attempted to use the tragedy of September 11 2001 to further US interests in the Middle East by imposing regime change on Iraq, and the craven Tony Blair backed him up, first with falsehoods, then with weapons and lives, telling us that Britain had to pay the “blood price” for our alliance with the US.

Bush’s narrative was that the world was a more dangerous place because evil terrorists, supported by rogue states, were attacking civilisation, freedom and democracy. 

He posed as the defender of these values, even though US political and military interventions had contributed to the rise of these same terrorist organisations. 

But he had no intention of reflecting on the facts or allowing himself to be inhibited by international law or public opinion. 

The administration’s agenda was global dominance — most clearly outlined by the Project for the New American Century; that other countries must subscribe to the US world view and its own concept of politics and economics. And as the US faced relative economic decline, it increasingly turned to military solutions to impose its will.

In 2003, the US focus was on the Middle East and its resources and strategic significance; nowadays the focus is on the Asia-Pacific, but the goal of domination remains the same. 

In today’s world their key goal is to constrain the rise of China and set back its economic growth. Military initiatives play a major role in this — such as the Aukus agreement and intensifying military activity in the region. 

This has been mirrored politically in the shift from defending freedom and democracy from terrorists to defending those supposedly “Western” values from “systemic rivals” like China and Russia. 

The focus may have moved in US policy and planning over the last two decades, but the end goal and method remain the same: global domination through military might.

But the goal of the peace movement remains constant too: the mobilisation of our communities, here and internationally, united in all our diversity, for the values of peace, justice and equality. 

In those terrible yet remarkable days, 20 years ago, it was the mass movement that mobilised for truth, for peace and justice; that fought to prevent the killing, to stop the war. 

Opposition to the war internationally was overwhelming, and tens of millions across the globe protested; we spoke for the global majority and we were, for a while, “the second superpower.” 

Of course the anti-war movement didn’t come out of nowhere. For some years there had been a massive international movement against neoliberal globalisation that mobilised millions across the world. 

This was when we challenged international financial institutions and powerful state groups, like the World Trade Organisation and the G8. 

Mobilisations took place on a global scale — the names Seattle and Genoa have gone down in history but there were many others; there were also real achievements in preventing new onslaughts on working people internationally. 

The World Social Forum emerged at this time, with its slogan coined by the great Indian peace activist Arundhati Roy — “Another World is Possible.” 

The social forum movement brought together a huge range of campaigning organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations, trade unions — huge numbers of people — to discuss new ways of solving problems, new alternatives for society, based on the values of peace and social justice. 

And it was from the European Social Forum meeting in Florence in 2002 that the call came for a global day of action against war on February 15, to mobilise public opinion worldwide against a war on Iraq. 

Once that call had gone out, the movement in Britain did everything it could to mobilise.

Three forces came together to organise the demonstration in London: the Stop the War Coalition, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. 

MAB built the largest mobilisation of Britain’s Muslim community ever in the anti-war movement.

Between us, and the many organisations that supported our call, we mobilised up to two million people in London that day. It was the biggest demonstration that had ever taken place in Britain. 

Together the three organisations went on to organise all the major anti-war demonstrations of those times, as well as working together to oppose Islamophobia, support civil liberties and defend the right to protest. 

The unity of the anti-war movement was remarkable and co-operation continued in subsequent years, against illegal war and intervention. 

Unity was key, but two other key principles played their part in building the movement and the mobilisation: diversity and international co-ordination.

The diversity of the movement was remarkable, as was the increasing awareness, almost from the start, of how many issues are linked together — not only in Britain but globally too. 

And through building alliances across civil society we were able to make sure that the demonstration reflected the level and diversity of opposition to attacking Iraq. 

The Establishment did everything it could to prevent the march and rally going ahead, but we refused to be deterred and with political determination and huge backing we were victorious. 

The weight of support across society meant they had to give way. Eventually even mainstream newspapers were advertising the route of the march — one even produced their own anti-war placards.

Blair went ahead with his illegal war, but the political impact of that demonstration was felt for many years, eventually bringing him down. 

There are clear lessons from that time: to understand what it is possible for the movement — for people united, engaged — to achieve; to understand what is really going on in the world — the relationship between neoliberalism and war; and to grasp the essential role of international co-ordination and solidarity. 

Since then we have seen many attacks on our movement as the Establishment has sought to destroy what was won. 

But we are fighting back, now more than ever, as the world faces new wars and there are threats of worse to come. It is our responsibility to be united, to continue to learn the lessons of those days — and to continue the fight against neoliberalism and war.

Kate Hudson is general secretary of CND (cnduk.org).