Report of Anti-War Meeting held in Dublin on 22 April

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Thursday April 27, 2006 15:16

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland

Dublin 20

Some personal reflections

I1m not sure if anybody was actually tasked with producing a public report of the 22 April anti-war gathering in Dublin, so I hope there are no objections if I give my own personal reflections on the event.

This second open anti-war gathering was held in the Teachers' Club, Parnell Square, Dublin, last Saturday between 2.30 and 5.30pm.

ATTENDANCE

Roughly 30 people were present, almost entirely from Dublin, but including three or four non-Dubs from Cork, Shannon and elsewhere. As with the previous meeting, there was a healthy cross-section of the anti-war movement represented, including members of Cosantoiri Siochana, Anti-War Ireland, IAWM, Grassroots Dissent, WSM, Pitstop Ploughshares, the Unmanageables (great name for a women's group!), Dublin Catholic Worker, and various others (please feel free to add names). There were also quite a few 'unaligned' individuals present, as well as at least, I believe, one member each of the Green Party and the SWP (both 'personal capacity', I suspect).

Overall, it was a good attendance; those present, in the main, were anti-war activists of one hue or other.
The meeting was facilitated by Coilin O hAiseadha and Mark Price of Cosantoiri Siochana, who did a good job of keeping the discussion on track. Importantly, neither was involved in any of the previous disputes in the anti-war movement and thus have no baggage.

DISCUSSION
There was a general acceptance of the need to put some shape on the coordination aspect of this initiative. Many solid proposals were advanced regarding types of action, but ultimately the discussion focused on the need to structure the coordination and cooperation in order to generally strengthen the anti-war movement. It was accepted (I think) that we are not forming an umbrella group to centralise the anti-war movement; rather, the task is to establish a coordination mechanism to facilitate both communication between the groups and joint activities as cooperation develops. To succeed, this will almost certainly require a mix of organisation and spontaneity. In the short-term, it will require increased participation from the various groups at the plenary sessions.

The emphasis, therefore, whittled down to two things:

1. Organising a modest action that could get the groups (and others) working together in the short-term.

After discussion, it was clear that the poster ban in Dublin was seen as an issue that needs to be confronted and it was agreed to organise a picket of the council meeting; this is to be done in conjunction with other groups and individuals. I should stress, however, that the intention is to do something modest initially and not to launch a full-blown campaign, though the need for such is obvious. A sub-group has been established to organise this. Details of the planned picket (to be held in early May) will no doubt be posted on indymedia in due course.

2. Coordination within the anti-war movement and the development of a democratic mechanism through which we can work together.

The intention is to engage with the various anti-war groups, involve them in discussion on how we can work together to strengthen the anti-war movement and draw them into the coordination process. A short-term intention is to increase the representation at the 'plenary' sessions.

DIFFICULTIES

The outlook for constructive cooperation is very good indeed, but some difficulties still exist.

1. A few of those attending seemed to view the proceedings as a meeting of a new anti-war group rather than a gathering to discuss/organise coordination and cooperation. This can be awkward as such activists, understandably, keep putting forward very specific action proposals (such as "let's organise a letter-writing campaign to TDs" etc. etc.). In fact, many great suggestions were put forward, but to move on all of these would mean acting as a distinct anti-war group rather than as a gathering to facilitate coordination, networking and cooperation. Obviously, with regard to the role of these gatherings, we must be clear about our objectives. If people misunderstand the purpose of the meetings, they are liable to be surprised (and, perhaps, disillusioned) when few suggested activities are adopted. Clarity is important.

2. The coordination mechanism still requires formal endorsement by the various organisations/groups, and, in my opinion, coordination will be no more than an aspiration until this occurs. The coordination sub-group is tasked with coming up with ideas on how to make this real. I am optimistic, though it is important that existing groups see this effort at coordination and cooperation as an opportunity rather than as a threat.

Overall, I thought the meeting went extremely well and broke up in very good spirits. It seemed to me that the general feeling was that progress had been made not bad for a second meeting!

The remarks above are not meant as a comprehensive report of the meeting, which was wide-ranging, and I'm sure others will add to the detail in their comments.

The next 'plenary' meeting will be held on 15 May (probably in the Teachers' Club) and anti-war activists really should make the effort to attend.

Care/act