500 to 600 march in Dublin against the Iraq war

by Jimmy Fri Sep 29, 2006 17:58

Have the people who planned this march, any plans to hold a march for the English to get out of the occupied region in the North. Surely the occupation of Ulster is closer to home that the occupation of IRAQ. Shouldn' this people be more patriotic and support their own country. Why don't they help highlight the campaign of political prisoners in the North who are kept in lock-down for 23 hours a day.

by himself Fri Sep 29, 2006 09:21

I remember a previous well attended march where some Yanks came out of the Gresham Hotel on O'Connell Street and actually joined in.

Do you judge the merit of a demo on the participation of token 'yanks' you spot on the route? Haven't plenty of American dissidents spoken at anti-war events of different shades here, though I s'pose in your eyes they are invalid or fake Americans as they were politicised? I just love these homogenous blocks of abstract people some types summon up.

by anon Fri Sep 29, 2006 07:18

500 is a small turn out. The FF/PD governement has so far failed in making Ireland netural in the currrent Iraq conflict so I'd withhold the pats on the back until somehting has been achieved.

by LaLa Thu Sep 28, 2006 16:25

"How can you speak for yourself without identifying yourself?" don't be so pompous. Annonymity is supposed to be respected on this site.

500 is a small turn out. The Anti War movement has so far failed in its objective of making Ireland netural in the currrent Iraq conflict so I'd withhold the pats on the back until somehting has been achieved.

The movement seems to have degenerated to the fringes and has lost touch with the general populace.

by David Bell Thu Sep 28, 2006 16:09

"As far as I know, the entire population of Ireland condemned the war in southern Lebanon"
So you have spoken to every one of us have you and confirmed that? Or maybe your clairvoyant skills have reached such a level that you can now read the minds of everybody in a geographic location. What source are you basing your evidence on, apart from your own simplistic and everything is just black-and-white view of the world?

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha Tue Sep 26, 2006 22:16

I don't like to spend too much time responding to "non-endorsers", i.e. people who won't even put their names to their writings, as their anonymity suggests that they themselves don't necessarily stand by what they say. How can you speak for yourself without identifying yourself? You could be Bertie Ahern's pedicurist speaking for yourself, for all I know.

So just a few brief comments:

Whatever the figure at Saturday's demo, be it 950 people or "only" 500, I reckon that's a good turnout. As far as I know, the entire population of Ireland condemned the war in southern Lebanon, yet "only" a few hundred people turned out at the demos I was at. So it seems that a few hundred people on the street represents a vast number of people who hold the same views but have other commitments to tend to. And the politicians know that this is how the numbers work.

So let me say what I forgot to say earlier:
CONGRATS to all who worked to hold a successful demo.

Getting back to rivalries: I see blaming as an excuse to avoid doing constructive work. If any activist wants to see Richard Boyd-Barrett displaced from his role as the de-facto most prominent spokesperson for the entire anti-war movement in Ireland, with all its constituent groups and individuals, I ask you to please put your efforts into building and developing an anti-war group of your choice to the point where it can elect a spokesperson who can represent you.

By the way, if you do happen to be Bertie's pedicurist, then I know you can afford to make a cash donation to the anti-war group of your choice. Give generously.

Best,
Coilín.

by chaff Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:55

Its because all people see now are crazy nuts swinging anti USA shite all over the joint, No to Imperialism, Join the Jihad brigades(at one rally suicide bombers were actually praised!!) that was the one btw that lost my support!

less radical nuts please and more sense, radicals have hijacked this group and have done what they always do best, bicker and marginalise therefore lose support en masse

by LaLa Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:48

500 attendees is piss poor. I don't know what happened but support has been lost big time.

I remember a previous well attended march where some Yanks came out of the Gresham Hotel on O'Connell Street and actually joined in.

I couldn't see that happening now with Socialist Worker/non-Worker/Party/Whatever Banners being the most Prominent ones.

The man on the Street was involved and now isn't. Why ?

by Ciaron Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:59

should read "establishment of the peace camp..."

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker (personal capacity) Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:39

"There would never have been direct actions at Shannon were it now for the confidence provided by the momentum behind the anti-war movement in 2003."

It could be argued that nonviolent direct action by Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly, Pit Stop Ploughshares and the establishment put the issue of the U.S. military use of Shannon on the map and the front page in Ireland. That these nonviolent direct actions of 2002, Jan/Feb 2003 - predate. preceeded and built the Feb 15th. mass movement (a movement that quickly evaporated, because it did not know where to go after the failure of representative democracy and the lack of imagination by its leadership). You could argue that and you would be right! What the leadership of the F15 mass movement did for the nonviolent direct actionists, well the jury's still out on that one. But collection of evidence for the defence will be a struggle.

Catholic Worker has a strategy - live in community, serve the poor, resist the war making state. We've got a history, a praxis, extended network (both faith based and secular), we've got a movie, lots of books published (academic and subjective), a song by Ani DiFranco and Utah Philips celebrating us. Mass movements can come and go but Catholic Worker (and others) will keep on resisting the war making state. For example the mass movement against nuclear weapons in the mid-80's. Our people predated it with NVDA www.plowsharesactions.org and survived its collapse www.jonahhouse.org

Pit Stop Ploughshares activists were recently asked to travel to Derry to speak in support of the Raytheon 9. Did we repond, "No some of the 9 are members of a party that tried to isolate us and marginalise us while we went through three trials in Dublin, we're not coming. We're taking our bat and ball and hammer and boltcutters and going home!" No we didn't , we went to Derry - this war and nonviolent resistance to it is bigger than all that and off we went and I'm sure we will head up tos upport them at trial and give them as many contacts, tips form our recent experience as possible. We need a big movement, a pluralist movement, a movement where people don't have to like the same music, be the same age, have the same hairstyle, of different faiths and no faiths) and spring from traditions. A movement that is so big that a lot of us aren't go to like each other. Bigger than a circle of friends, bigger than a sewing circle. (Although there is a radical feminist sewing group in my home town called "Stich and Bitch" that odes great political work!)

I think a debate is a bad idea. If you are serious about the war, the Catholic Worker is willing to hook up woth you on the basis of direct dmeocracy and nonviolence. AWN is a good concept, similar in concept to the anarcho AAA effort. If cynical organisations treat it as an intelligence gathering opportunity or a means to control the anti war movement, they should be resisted by those who attend.

The Catholic Worke doesn't see nvda and mass movement as mutually exclusive. In just a question of time and energy and because we are commited to the other two dimensions of our praxis community and hospitality to the homeless. Decisions have to be made (by all of us) about where to put finite time and energy. But we will go to rallies, spread the word about them turn up outside the Four Courts for the Rossport 5, got to other peolpe fundraisers etc etc

by MichaelY - iawm(per cap) Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:36

I don't know if you are on the AWI mailing list but their bulletins include all anti-war events including those of the IAWM. Everything is advertised and promoted without fear or favour.

Absolutely correct

Has there been reciprocation from the IAWM? Absolutely not.

Partially wrong. Things may had been as described but, more recently, attitudes are beginning to mellow. Nine IAWM members, for example, were at the most recent AWI meeting in the ATGWU and AWI were congratulated for their initiative.

There are people within the IAWM that think that they speak for and represent the broad anti-war movement.
True up to a point. Yet, they are not alone in that madness. There are people outside the IAWM who think and act in the same way. Any suggestions?

In the minds of some IAWM 'leaders', to work with other groups on an equal basis would be to diminish their 'standing' and they aren't up for that. They want the media to continue to see them as the 'leadership' of the anti-war movement.

There aren't too many IAWM 'leaders'...there is Richard who works very very hard on promoting the IAWM - he wants to be elected (and there is nothing wrong with that!!) and in that process he does what he can with those who would work with him. And, yes, a good part of the media continue to see him as the leadership. Now, some AWI members, are also promoting themselves in other parts of the media as spokespeople....nothing wrong with that either!
Furthermore, the AWN which you qualified as a joke, and members of it as "gullible", is precisely an attempt by many of us "to work with other groups on an equal basis".

Now - can we move on pls? Can we discuss a more productive way forward.....

by antiwar Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:25

Is there something wrong with speaking for yourself?

by MichaelY - iawm(per cap) Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:18

I speak for myself and nobody else - you say . We can all see that - we never thought otherwise.

Anybody can see the dynamics going on here - ditto!

Don't take it personally - hard not to when comrades are called gullible and the like. Still debate is good!!

Before I come back to your more sensible points above (later because work beckons)

I just wanted to let comrades now that there is a very interesting conference on 'Blogging and the Elections' taking place Saturday, October 7th, 10.30- 16.30.

For those interested (free) registration is at:

http://www.irishelection.com/blogger-conference/#regist...ation

Lets create a solid anti-war block in there......

by antiwar Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:10

First off, MichaelY, I speak for myself and nobody else. Did I claim anywhere else to do otherwise?

Secondly, AWI members have bent over backwards to extend solidarity to the IAWM. I don't know if you are on the AWI mailing list but their bulletins include all anti-war events including those of the IAWM. Everything is advertised and promoted without fear or favour. Has there been reciprocation from the IAWM? Absolutely not. Apart from a few good people like yourself, the attitude of the IAWM has been surly towards other anti-war groups. Little or no mutuality. The reason is obvious to see: there are people within the IAWM that think that they speak for and represent the broad anti-war movement. Even the name indicates such a conceit. Nobody in Anti-War Ireland, Cosantoiri or any other anti-war group has ever made such an arrogant claim. In the minds of some IAWM 'leaders', to work with other groups on an equal basis would be to diminish their 'standing' and they aren't up for that. They want the media to continue to see them as the 'leadership' of the anti-war movement, which most definitely are not.

And MichaelY, you should try not to take this stuff personally. Anybody can see the dynamics going on here.

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:53

It's good to see that this thread is beginning to work - many thoughtful and incisive messages and a few, as always, off-the-wall stuff.

It was good to read Coilin's message - comes from a comrade who's trying hard to work with the various 'factions' of the anti-war movement. Who's trying to focus on the key objectives and puts forward proposals and suggestions. To that extent, the condescending message by the "anti-war"er above is an unwarranted + messy response. I am going to call you 'a scibbler' because I don't want to use a heavier term!

First, being anonymous, it's hard to fathom whether the stuff argued is supposed to represent, some or all of, AWI views. In that respect it would be more useful if people from all sections identified themselves, albeit with a handle....Fintan and Deirdre always do - your comrade from Cork always does - and they're in the AWI, are they not?

"First of all, Coilin, the Anti-War Network is a joke" says our scribbler. This, most likely, comes from a person who has never been into a AWN meeting - for better or worse, about 30 of anti-war activists, from Cosantoiri, from AWI, from IAWM, from the anarchist movement and a good few non-aligned, we have been trying to work together, to create channels of communication, to develop trust, to get to know each other, to overcome what Fintan correctly described as "deep past wounds"

The AWN methinks, that according to our friend is only "Cosantoiri Siochana", is anything but a joke...it's a serious political process, one of the few noteworthy attempts of the last few months to create unity. And to the extent that 4-5 AWI comrades have been full part of this process from the beginning, and are greatly respected for that, the scribbler does his/her own organisation and its membership no favours with this type of arrogant nonsense!!

"Second, you.... must be incredibly gullible if you think that a brief audience with the organisers constitutes involvement with this demo", the scribbler continues....

The gullibility in this respect is only in the eye of the beholder. None of us in the AWN, and certainly not Coilin, have thought that all this bull that has been dividing us would or could have been resolved by one meeting....but a meeting took place...and a second one has been agreed. And to the extent that I was part of arranging that initial get-together, I'd say once step forward has been achieved. To quote the old icon, lets not go two steps back!! And my thinking was not led by "friendship" - but that's another story!!

Finally, the scribbler says "Personally, I think the exclusion of AWI had to do with petty sectarianism emanating from one faction in one group. It is this sectarian mindset that is holding back greater unity in the anti-war movement.. Those involved in that particular group need to name this problem and deal with it, if the anti-war movement is to move forward. If this isn't done, then they shouldn't be surprised when activists are cynical about their organisation."

There is a bit of sense in the above paragraph...however there is not only "one faction in one group" that's the problem....it's the 'Independent Republic' syndrome of the Irish condition and identity...that syndrome that bedevils all social and political life - from Keano to the PDs, from the Republican Movement to the rest of us! And a number of factions in a number of groups!

So, dear anti-warer, think again....and rather than throwing barbs at the usual suspects, come forward with some positive ideas...Coilin has tried...other comrades above have...improve the thread, tell us about the arrangements the AWI is making re:October 28th and Shannon....so that we can all support and take part.....all of us in the AWN and the IAWM.....clarify your position on elections. And, most important of all, tell us if it is your personal views you're regaling us with here or whether you reflect AWI "democracy and internal process"!!

Fraternally

Michael

by antiwar Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:58

Coilin writes the following regarding the supposed inclusivity of the organising for last saturday's demo:

"Re the "exclusion" of Anti-War Ireland?
I attended a meeting of the Anti-War Network some weeks ago, where plans were made for this demo. As always, this plenary meeting was open to all relevant anti-war/peace activists, including members of Anti-War Ireland.

Also, Deirdre Clancy announced the demo at AWI's public meeting in the ATGWU hall a few weeks ago, and exhorted people to participate. I understood Deirdre's comments to represent support from AWI.

Perhaps the organisers of the demo could have done more to invite more members of AWI to attend - e.g. by phoning people and asking them to participate, as Mark Price did in connection with some of the earlier meetings in the network? "

First of all, Coilin, the Anti-War Network is a joke.

Second, you - and the network (read Cosantoiri Siochana) - must be incredibly gullible if you think that a brief audience with the organisers constitutes involvement with this demo.

You made plans for it at a network plenary? Listen to me, the IAWM, PANA and NGO Peace Alliance were holding REAL organising meetings to which groups like the IPSC and Labour Youth were invited. These meetings were by invite only and neither you, anybody from Cosantoiri or anybody from AWI were invited. Attending a meeting of the network to plan for the Dublin demo would have been ridiculous, when the network (such as it is), AWI and Cosantoiri were excluded from the REAL decision-making meetings. How gullible are you? What exactly did you organise for last Saturday? What decisions did you partake in? None. Absolutely zero.

With regard to Anti-War Ireland supporting the demo, what are you on about? Of course AWI supported the march and put a real and serious effort into convincing people to attend. In fact, AWI members travelled down from Belfast to attend while IAWM members there headed to Britain for the UK national demonstration. However, AWI supported the Dublin march because it was the right thing to do, not because they were involved in the organising. AWI was never invited to ANY of the organising or decision-making meetings.

The anti-war network (such as it is) asked to meet the organisers and one point and, through the auspices of a friendly IAWM member, a meeting happened shortly before the demo. AWI attended. From the first-hand reports I have, this was an inconsequential exchange of views. The decisions had already been made and neither AWI nor the network were invited to become co-organisers. Even if they were invited to become co-organisers, it would have been pointless because all the decisions had already been taken. At that point the organisers were simply looking to BUILD their demo.

The whole saga around this 'national' demo is a sorry tale of two and a bit groups (IAWM, PANA, NGO PA) acting as if they constitute the anti-war movement. Nobody is saying that they can't organise their own demos, but national demonstrations on international days of action should involve all the anti-war groups.

Personally, I think the exclusion of AWI had to do with petty sectarianism emanating from one faction in one group. It is this sectarian mindset that is holding back greater unity in the anti-war movement.. Those involved in that particular group need to name this problem and deal with it, if the anti-war movement is to move forward. If this isn't done, then they shouldn't be surprised when activists are cynical about their organisation.

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha Mon Sep 25, 2006 23:20 aat2004 at mail dot dk 086 060 3818

A few points in response to some of the discussion so far:

Re counting participants:
I know from experience that the number marching may vary from one point on the demo to another.

At one march in Copenhagen - March 2004, as far as I remember - I counted people passing a point near the END of the route and and got a figure that was rejected as "too low" by counters near the START of the march. Unfortunately, x thousand and y hundred was the number who marched past me, whether that figure was "too low" or not. The discrepancy apparently arose because hundreds of people wandered off to tend to other business along the way. This might explain the gap of several hundred metres and several minutes that appeared in the march as it passed me, until a second group of marchers appeared.

So I would advise counters to be wary of denouncing each other's tallies.

***

Re the "exclusion" of Anti-War Ireland?
I attended a meeting of the Anti-War Network some weeks ago, where plans were made for this demo. As always, this plenary meeting was open to all relevant anti-war/peace activists, including members of Anti-War Ireland.

Also, Deirdre Clancy announced the demo at AWI's public meeting in the ATGWU hall a few weeks ago, and exhorted people to participate. I understood Deirdre's comments to represent support from AWI.

Perhaps the organisers of the demo could have done more to invite more members of AWI to attend - e.g. by phoning people and asking them to participate, as Mark Price did in connection with some of the earlier meetings in the network?

Also, for future demos, perhaps the consultation process should begin earlier - e.g. at the point of deciding on which date to march? Not everybody was convinced of the symbolic significance of 23 September.

***

Re strategy:
I am inclined to think that just about every imaginable kind of demonstration is worthwhile, provided it is non-violent and does not consume inordinate amounts of resources.

I think it is unhelpful for any particular anti-war group to see itself as competing with other groups for a very limited "market" of potential supporters. As far as I can see, there are hundreds of thousands of Irish people out there just waiting to be invited to participate in some kind of constructive protest - i.e. a vast "market". There may be many reasons why any given peace-loving citizen doesn't turn out for a particular demonstration or action, including the following:
i. didn't know it was taking place
ii. was not personally invited
iii. had other commitments on the day
iv. was not inspired by the form of action

From my point of view, the Irish anti-war "market" is vast, but the diversity of "products and services" for sale on this market is limited. Devising new strategies could be considered as a process of "research and development" for anti-war services.

(You may have guessed that I went to business school before the invasion of Iraq loomed, but I used what I learned to start a successful Danish peace group, and demolished my business in the process. So please bear with me while I argue that marketing theory is not good-for-nothing, but good for something after all. If marketing theory can be used to sell something as useless as a dodgy brand of brown sugar-water, it can also be used to promote an anti-war movement.)

Being mostly grassroots organisations of volunteers, anti-war groups tend to have limited resources (e.g. labour and capital), so progress may be slow, but the movement must move on with whatever resources it can muster, particularly to mobilise more people to share the workload.

The movement must work to devise a _diversity_ of good strategies that will attract different kinds of people: some may want to march, some may want to engage in civil disobedience, some may prefer to write letters or send faxes or make phone calls, some may want to build a Tibetan prayer wheel or organise a sponsored bog swim ... It's all good as long as it mobilises people who would otherwise just sit sadly shaking their heads at the TV.

In my understanding, debating is not a method of devising new strategies, but a process by which one idea kills another idea off. This may be very useful in situations where a decision or choice has got to be made, but it may be destructive in situations where what is needed is more and new ideas.

I think the choice of the "best" strategy is a matter for the individual rather than the movement as a whole. It may be that different strategies work in support of each other, and that the best strategies can best be discovered by trying out a number of different options simultaneously.

One possible way to devise new strategies might be to participate in a strategy workshop that takes a structured look at visions, strategic objectives, key players and a diversity of possible tactics to influence these key players. By "key players", I mean people such as ground crew and security staff at Shannon, directors of troop-carrying airlines, the editor of a local newspaper, a politician running for election next year, public servants working at the Civil Aviation Authority ... or whatever you're having yourself.

I participated in a workshop of this kind in June and would like to hold another very soon - or more than one, if the interest is there. Open to all. For further details of methodology or other aspects, please get in touch at the e-mail address or phone number above,

Best,
Coilín.

by Robyn Mon Sep 25, 2006 20:00 peacefulwarriorprincess at yahoo dot com dot au South Australia

I am most pleased that Dublin folk marched in the streets for No War.

Congratulations to each and every one who participated.

I am a member of No-War South Australia www.nowar-sa.net

I hope to work cooperatively and in solidarity with Dublin folk during my upcoming visit from this November.

by tom eile Mon Sep 25, 2006 19:38

A debate would cause a public scrap and that would be a bad thing thinks AWIer .It's alright to be at each others throats in other words but not in front of the children . I don’t think AWIer realizes the amount of distrust and enmity that already exists between the two factions - a war in the anti-war movement . It sounds like a joke - which is the way it’s coming across to a lot of people on the street .And the divisions are that deep that they do often "preclude cooperation" .
A debate would be to help people make up their minds about the best way forward for the movement - how activists should orientate to the next election or whether they should take what AWIer thinks will be his group’s position and not bother too much with the elections at all .

by Update Mon Sep 25, 2006 18:24

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/u..._iraq

by AWI'er Mon Sep 25, 2006 18:04

The differences between AWI and IAWM are real, but they don't preclude cooperation. I doubt if AWI will focus on next year's elections but I also doubt if people in either the IAWM and AWI would be bothered debating this stuff out. Why create a public scrap? What's the benefit for the anti-war movement?

Moreover, such a 'debate' would become rancerous very quickly because the differences also have to do with organisational issues, with internal democratic structures, accountability and other 'tedious' stuff that would inevitably come up. They are not just about tactics, strategies and political outlooks. AWI lays a particular emphasis on internal democracy and accountability. Do the IAWM and SWP really want to get into that? Doubt it.

by tom eile Mon Sep 25, 2006 17:42

“an acceptance by the IAWM and the AWI that we have more in common than divides us.”
That’s a good starting point. We have to assume that both groups act out of good intentions in trying to stop war. Leading lights in the IAWM should stop saying that to be anti-SWP is to be substantially pro-war and pro-US politics. At the same time AWI shouldn’t dismiss the IAWM as merely an SWP front.
But we have to accept that real divisions do exist - probably long-term ones -, and that these divisions are negatively affecting the building of a broad-based movement at the moment. We need to develop strategies to make divisions less rancorous, even beneficial, to the anti-war cause. Practical initiatives like the anti-war network need to be encouraged , and perhaps a debate organized between the two anti-war factions to clear the air a little . Another step towards healing wounds would be for the IAWM to honestly admit that the bureaucratic prising of activists like Fintan Lane and Laurence Vize from the group two years ago was a disaster.
Speaking to activists on Saturday’s march I got that impression that IAWM and AWI take slightly different attitudes towards next year’s elections . IAWM supporters are taking the line that anti-war work should be co-ordinated with local bread-and butter issues like the anti-bin tax campaign while AWI seems to be calling for a more exclusive focus on the closure of Shannon for US troops. Would it be going beyond the brief of the Anti-War Network to organize a debate on this issue?
I’d like to endorse an earlier poster’s praise for the group that played after the march .There were fine performances in the lashing rain before the march which need to be mentioned as well.

by anon Mon Sep 25, 2006 15:26

"I'm sure Anti-War Ireland is doing a great deal of work and maybe most activists would be aware that it is the dominant faction of the broad anti-war movement,"

I never said AWI was the DOMINANT faction in the broad anti-war movement. The broad anti-war movement is a diverse movement made up of different groups and individuals. My point was that the current standing of the IAWM is completely hyped - very deliberately by the SWP. The IAWM is a small group and I doubt, if you excluded the SWP, that it has any more, and probably less, members than Anti-War Ireland. It does have the ear of certain elements in the media but that could change, or be changed, very quickly as new organisations like AWI become active on the streets.

Short version of what I'm saying: paralysis and demoralisation are caused by allowing oneself to be overawed by hype. The way forward is to take the initiative and be imaginative, constructive, and democratic in our approach.

by Edward Horgan - PANA et al Mon Sep 25, 2006 14:52

I was not able to get to Dublin on Sunday but I congratualate the organisers of this demonstration and encourage them and others to continue to highlight the abuse of international law by Ireland at Shannon airport and of course the gross abuses of international and humanitarian laws and the basic laws of morality in Afghanistan and Iraq, by the US and UK especially.
For the record, over 17,000 people have now been killed in Afghanistan since the US led invasion in 2001, and well over 150,000 Iraqis have died since 20 March 2003.

about one million (1,000,000) armed us troops have passed through Shannon Airport since 2001, in clear breach of the international laws on neutrality.
Ireland has helped to kill over 150,000 people and destroy huge amounts of property and infrastructure.

Recently, in an attempt to play down the Shannon airport issue as an election issue next year, the Irish and US governments have significantly reduced the numbers of US troops passing through Shannon and have imposed a virtual ban on US military aircraft landing at Shannon. this is just a temporary ploy to hoodwink the electorate. After the election the military business will resume again, if we allow it to, and we can assume that in any further US led unlawful wars, including possible attacks on Iran or Syria, that Shanon airport will be used, now that a "precedent" has been created.
Our sincere thanks to the Catholic workers for at least establishing the legal fact that it is right to take direct peaceful actions to stop these crimes being facilitated within Ireland

We appeal for as many people as possible to come to Shannon on 28 October 2006 and demonstrate for peace not war.

Edward Horgan

by Anti-war but frustrated Mon Sep 25, 2006 14:03

I'm sure Anti-War Ireland is doing a great deal of work and maybe most activists would be aware that it is the dominant faction of the broad anti-war movement, though I'd doubt it. As far as the media is concerned, there is ONE anti-war movement and it is the IAWM. Bear in mind most political correspondents for national papers are unaware of the difference between the SWP and the SP so the notion that they know of or would understand differences like this is inaccurate.

Sometimes, I certainly remember it from my experience as an activist, the left is so tightly wrapped up in what we're doing that we fail to recognise that what appears obvious to us, is unknown to the wider public.

by anon Mon Sep 25, 2006 13:44

"I believe the reality is that the broad anti-war movement in Ireland is so dominated by the IAWM/SWP that there is little, if any, space for non-SWP formations to play a significant role"

This is not true. The SWP is nowhere near as dominant as you believe. Most anti-war activists are not members of the IAWM (hardly any outside of Dublin) and as Anti-War Ireland has shown in recent weeks, it's possible for people to build new anti-war formations successfully.

All the other stuff reads precisely like the agenda that Anti-War Ireland has set itself. Things are nowhere near as stuck as you seem to think they are. People just need to take the initiative and not assume that the IAWM or any group has a monopoly on anything. The IAWM, a small organisation kept together almost entirely by the SWP, does NOT own the anti-war movement.

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Mon Sep 25, 2006 13:38

Some very useful points re: the interlinked relationship between the development of a politically conscious popular movement and sections of it prepared to engage in direct action are being made here. My own stance on this issue, for whatever is worth, is that one is not possible without the other, that one feeds the other, that the combined force of both is the only way to push, hassle seriously and turn an elected Government.
Isolating oneself into one of the two, supposedly oppositional, corners can go nowhere...it is my view that proponents of that kind of isolationism are getting smaller and smaller in numbers - and play no influential role in the anti-war movement.
Attacking individuals, or organisations, for their political views and actions is an easy option...referring to KA's Saturday speech, the main core of whose perspectives are shared incidentally by as diverse forces as PANA, Cosantoiri Siochana and Sinn Fein, to mention but a three, as "shite" - where does that get us?
Meetings have happened and more are planned, marches have happened and more are planned, a few direct actions have happened and more are planned.
The objective of all that is clear: Stop the collaboration of the Irish Government with the Empire - stop using Shannon and Baldonnel as warports.

If there is a missing link, please note IF, it's perhaps an articulated stage by stage strategy of moving from where we are to where we want to get to. Marches, meetings, direct or indirect actions are all the tactical arsenal of the process of building a movement. Can we, momentarily, focus on a more complex strategic perspective?

by Anti war but frustrated Mon Sep 25, 2006 13:28

I hadn't planned on going to the demo on Saturday for a lot of the reasons outlined here. Frustration that all the anti-war movement seemed to be was the occasional march; knowledge that there would be about a couple of dozen overlong speeches; that few non-activist types would turn up; that it would lead nowhere and as someone who is not an SWP supporter, I had no desire to march to help Boyd Barrett into the Dáil.

Ended up having to go to meet someone there and in retrospect, am glad I went from a conscience point of view, but equally somewhat depressed that exactly what I had anticipated came to pass.

From an outside perspective, not associated with any political party (Though I vote Labour and Sinn Féin in my constituency for what it's worth) the argument about the tactics of direct action against marches misses the point a little. They are both simply tactics, tools of political mobilisation, building the strength of the movement, physically preventing planes using Shannon etc. Realistically, you can't have one without another.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no overarching strategy uniting both the two tactics, and other tactics as well btw such as using unions and elected representatives more effectively, to bring it all together. I understand that at one point, there was an alliance of the IAWM, PANA and the NGO Peace Alliance responsible for co-ordination, but that this was really only on paper with the IAWM being in charge for practical purposes.

I believe the reality is that the broad anti-war movement in Ireland is so dominated by the IAWM/SWP that there is little, if any, space for non-SWP formations to play a significant role. We need the SWP, and the IAWM, but we cannot be solely reliant on them, or their tendency to burn bridges with people,. parties and organisations they might need in the future.

If we accept that there is no strategy for the anti-war movement in Ireland except the occasional protest or symbolic direct action, that's the first step. The second, is to realise that we need such a strategy and accept that one must be created. The third is the creation of one. This would require three things. Well, it'd require a lot of things, but these three overall:

Firstly, a commitment to genuinely engage in a serious way with a broad anti-war campaign from all those opposed to the war. What I mean by this is that people like Labour, Sinn Féin, Greens etc. turn up at the demos and do the speeches, but do very little inbetween to build the campaign. They need to give a commitment to do so and be serious about it. These parties and groups not only have the resources, but also the credibility with people, that the current anti-war movement lacks.

Secondly, an acceptance by the IAWM and the AWI that we have more in common than divides us. Our opponents can bury their differences to unite against us. I fail to see why we can't do the same. This means an end to 'trot-bashing' and endless arguments about why direct action is elitist or why marches are pointless.

Thirdly, an acceptance by the IAWM, and consequently the SWP, of a reduced role in a broader anti-war movement where it would be obliged to share responsibility and authority with others for the good of the movement. The IAWM, to paraphrase Milton, can either serve in a broad campaign, or rule in the political wilderness. I'm genuinely unsure as to which they would prefer but I suspect certain individuals would have a marked preference for the latter.

Putting aside our differences and working together was possible for the Rossport campaign. Once the SWP understood it would not be allowed to dominate the campaign it played a productive and important role.

by A Mon Sep 25, 2006 13:26

I have nothing against marches, they are always good social occasions and networking opportunities.

I invest minimal energy into organising them and have minimal expectations about them. Like you I only have certain amount of hours in the day and decisions have to be made on priorities. I put mine into resistance and solidarity for those resisting. Horses for courses!

I thought it was a huge tactical error by IAWM to call another mass rally and march in '03 after the freak 100,000 Feb 15th '03 tirnout. Symbolically the movement looked like it was getting smaller and smaller (the anti-war activism in Ireland has, the passive anti-war opinion has held firmed probably increased.). The war of course escalates....7,000 dead in the last couple of months alone. the contradictions deepen. Support for it is evaporating.

A few hundred on a march marketed as a "show of strength" look pathetic, the same number deployed to TD offices (instead of mustered for ever decreasing rallies in '03) looks and feels dynamic (tension) and numerous. No tension on a Saturday stroll down O'Connel St and then last Saturday we march right into the pig pens, arresting ourselves on a traffic island. Police tactic (like our foreign policy) recently exported from London! How could anyone expect any mainstream media coverage when the world media was at the Ryders Cup. As has been suggested here, that's where we should have taken our message (even 20-30 of us) to Clinton and Bush Sr.

More needs to be analysed and debated than what were the numbers last saturday
Over the past few years, have the people calling the shots serious about anti-war activity in Ireland or just saw it as another opportunity to set out their stall hoping for recruits to their political organisations? Did they see the NVDA people as competitors in a limited market for recruits (and movement leadership) that need to be marginalised. Imprisoned CW's weren't mentioned at all from the stage on Feb 15th. 2003. Some of the moderate leadership were repeating the Government lies that "they had assaulted and hospitalised a Garda in the hangar" on radio interviews. Lies rejected by Garda press officer ont he day of the action and at three trials under oath by the unassaulted unhospitalised Garda in question, never publicly retracted by govenment ministers or moderate anti-war leadership. You should be thankful those five people are Christians and are so forgiving. Most of us wouldn't be in their situation.

A recent development at last Saturday's rallies was the announcing of other anti-war groups upcoming activities. This should be a standard practice after every left public meeting. Announcement time. we need to build a movement on the basis of mutualtiy, a resistance and solidarity culture, where the "market" of interested in radical politics is expanded.

by himself Mon Sep 25, 2006 13:10

The only time the demand of " U.S. Troops out of Shannon" ever matearialsied on any level were...

You do realise you are engaged in the sort of vapid sloganeering you are criticising yourself here? The point people on this thread are attempting to make is that direct action requires a popular anti-war movement, they are not mutually exclusive. You like the SWP focus on one to the detriment of the other. There would never have been direct actions at Shannon were it now for the confidence provided by the momentum behind the anti-war movement in 2003. You can ignore that all you want, but it is essentially the lack of a proper anti-war mobilisations that has seen no real attempts at direct action in Shannon since 2003. If no one will March in the rain then who will strom Shannon? It is a tireless substitionist approach to politics in many ways. One that seeks to short circuit the political work needed to build a movement that can seriously challenge that state through direct action and instead just berates everyone with a 'one more push, one more push' line that swamps the room for critically looking at where we are and where we want to go. I have no time for the 'turn the election into a referendum on Shannon' shite coming from K Allen and friends, but equally if anarchists ignore the task of building large mass movements against war on a genuinely democratic basis then you leave it to the SWP and paint yourself into a corner on the fringe.

How many people ont he march no names like Sgt. Kevin Benderman presently serving 2 years fro refusing to deploy to Iraq etc etc etc

This is moving the goal posts and has nothing to do with your earlier points. It does nothing to undermine any ones arguement.

by A Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:42

"Now 'A' says that direct action is "the only thing that has worked so far"! Worked? So far?! Are there not MORE troops going through Shannon than ever? "

The only time the demand of " U.S. Troops out of Shannon" ever matearialsied on any level were...

1) Dec '02 when several hundred people turned up to protest at Shannon, commercial radio reports to U.S. military flights diverted to Prestwick in response.

2) The U.S. military plane diabled by Mary Kelly, repaired and disabled by the Catholic Workers. The plane abandons its mission is turned around and sent back to Texas, did not serve the invasion for a couple of months as it did not fly for a couple of months.

3) March '03, four U.S. companies transporting troops pull out of Ireland. U.S. Rmbassy credits pul out due to MK & CW nonviolent direct actions.

U.S. companies return after 4 months due to the lack of follow up nonviolent direct action at Shannon. Attempt at follow by libertarians in early March sabotaged by IAWM and major political parites, press conference, disinformation, debacle. the absence of further NVDA over the 4 months is that U.S. companies conclude it is "safe to return".

Reports are later released that Foreign Minister Cowen had been running to the U.S. Embassy during this period assuring them "that the general anti-war movement would run its course, blow over, no long term problem with U.S. military using Shannon".

4) The weekend following the acquittal of the Catholic Workers Irish government tells U.S. military flights resupplying Israeli invasion of Lebanon don't land at Shannon, they are diverted to Prestwick, where they meet 400 protesters and are re- redirected to RAF Midenhall in Sussex. (a coincidence, I think not!)

5) At the begininng of Catholic Worker third trial (July '06) World Airways announces move to Liepzig, Germany, cutting troop movements through Shannon by 2/3.

So yes NVDA has disrupted/diverted troop movements through Ireland by 2/3. The NVDA in Ireland although not supported by the mainstream parties running the general anti war movement and heavilly censored by the Irish media (CW acquittal was reported worldwide in Time Magazine!) was the most significant civilian disruption to U.S. deployment for this war. (Maybe you can put that down to an anti-war movement generally lacking in nonviolent militancy compared to say the ant-Vietnam War movement of the '60's)

The point is not merely the lack of solidarity from the general movement to people who put themselves on the line like the Catholic Workers and now the Raytheon 9. It is the lack of solidarity to where the most significant nonviolent resistance to the war is presently coming form....within the British and U.S. military. How many people ont he march no names like Sgt. Kevin Benderman presently serving 2 years fro refusing to deploy to Iraq etc etc etc

by AWI member Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:58

D_D is right. This apparent polarisation between those who only want marches (and condemn or sneer at direct action) and those who demand direct action (and completely dismiss marches) is unhelpful and unimaginative. The march on Saturday wasn't huge, but it was significant and useful. It was certainly worth doing, if only to galvanise the collective. In unity is strength, and the march reminded us that we are definintely not alone in our anti-war activism. Direct action can only have a significant impact as part of a broader movement. Mass action and mass activities are absolutely essential. Tactics are chosen on the basis of what's appropriate at any given time and in this tactical diversity there is real strength. Groundhog Day, we do not want. People should bear in mind that respect for diversity of tactics cuts both ways.

I think most people understand the need for a mix of marches and direct action. The days of saying that it's one or d'other should be put well behind us.

Well done to the organisers of Saturday's march!

P.S. Congrats given, it should also be said, however, that the complete exclusion of anti-war groups such as AWI from the organising and decision-making meetings for this NATIONAL march, on an INTERNATIONAL day of action, was bad form and not very friendly.

by D_D Mon Sep 25, 2006 01:12

Well done, all, on Saturday.

There's a place for both marches and direct action. Anti-War Ireland are correct on this.

At this stage, it's tedious to hear over and over again that 'marches in Dublin have not worked'. As if direct action has 'worked', in the sense of stopping the war. Both are part of a continuing movement.

Now 'A' says that direct action is "the only thing that has worked so far"! Worked? So far?! Are there not MORE troops going through Shannon than ever? There is no simple cause and effect in this. Who believes that the mightiest military machine in history is going to be halted by small groups taking non-violent (or violent) action against the occasional warplane? It's protest, it's heroic, it's part of the whole. But it won't 'work' by itself.

by Máire - Peaceful Means Campaign Mon Sep 25, 2006 00:43 maire.mhic at hotmail dot com

Started writing this poem on Saturday morning, hoping to hand out copies at the anti-war vigil & march, but I failed to get it ready in time. Hope some of you may enjoy it!

Empires built on force give rise,
To yet more plans to kill and fight.
To overcome evil, first we need,
To admit that might is never right.
Reducing countries to the stone-age,
When with their policies we don’t agree,
Is clearly a waste of God-given talents,
Stupidity to the nth degree.

US soldiers pass through Shannon
And head to where their bombs are dropped.
It’s more than high-time to face this issue,
Collaboration with them should be stopped.
Many feel shame and deep anger,
While people cry as their loved-ones die.
May amends be made to all those victims,
Whose homes and lives in shatters lie.

We should always try to listen,
To informed opinions and debate,
Hear the grievance of those suffering,
And help them overcome their hate.
Peace on Earth is always possible,
By following just a simple Truth,
Revealed in all the Christian gospels,
Of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.

Returning Good for every Evil,
Is the only way of genuine peace.
Goodwill leads us to seek forgiveness,
Thus grace from God we can release.
Love is shown to be more powerful,
When searching for a way to build,
A world where harmony will always lead
To no more people being hurt or killed.

Written 23rd Sept. 2006 by a Peaceful Mean Campaigner.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 25, 2006 00:21

Dear counter

Myself and a lady friend we both counted the participants as the march turned in Dame Street back towards the GPO. Both of us were standing in front of the BoI opposite TCD. In fact her count was closer to 1,000 - I took the lower figure because I agree that inflating figures is counter-productive.

From your message I'd agree that it was a lively and good march. However, either your counting was off peak on Saturday or your handle 'counter' is used as an adjective rather than a noun! Either way, you're wrong anonymous 'friend'.

by A Sun Sep 24, 2006 23:55

There is no serious sign of either the Greens or Sinn Fein runniing on the intimacy of Ahern with Bush (big issue in England, brought governments downin Spain & Italy) even after last weeks Sun Trib Poll
stating 80% of Irish people think Bush has made the world a dangerous place. Let alone runnig on Irish particpation in this war. It doesn't matter who will be groveling on our behalf with a bowl of Shamrocks at the White House after the next election!

Representative democracy has failed to heed the historic numbers that marched in Ireland before the war started or the unaniomous acquittal of the Shannon 5 of charges of "$US2.5 million damage" to U.S. military equipment at Shannon.

Give representative democracy a miss, try direct democracy and organise for nonviolent direct action at Shannon. It's the only thing that has worked so far when a handful of people tried it. Imagine what we could achieve with larger numbers!

Don't wait for another futile elaction that has already been bought - take your opposition to Irish Governent's support for the war to Shannon Sat. Oct 28th

by counter Sun Sep 24, 2006 23:44

Michael Y must be seeing double. It was a good, lively march well worth doing, but there was nothing even close to 960 present! Not unless you were counting the pedestrians on O'Connell Street. Just over 500 would be a more accurate number and I know because I actually counted - BEFORE the rain drove many people off the street. About 350 stayed on the island outside the GPO to listen to speeches.

It's a bad policy to inflate figures.

by Celia S Sun Sep 24, 2006 23:04

I think it would be safe to say that éirígí opposes Irish capitalism and 'Irish imperialism' (if such a thing exists in practice, outside of complicity with the machinations of British & US imperialism, for example). Genuine opposition to capitalism is based upon the understanding that as a system it (capitalism) is global, to be opposed wherever it is found, and, ultimately, replaced by a system based upon co-operation and human solidarity etc.

Therefore, I certainly would think that the specific highlighting of British and US imperialism must be seen in the context both of it being the most immediate and identifiable threat to the future of humanity, and (very importantly), the campaign to make the use of Shannon airport an election issue.

Well done to all who turned out on Saturday.

CS

by r whelan Sun Sep 24, 2006 23:04

Dublin against the Iraq war, photo essay
image copy right

by Stranded in Cork Sun Sep 24, 2006 21:31

That's the old spirit--the one that fans the flames! You've definitely lifted my spirits!

And thanks to all of you who showed up. Your actions were were most definitely done "in my name".

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Sep 24, 2006 21:18

First and above all, well done to all of us, of you, about 960-970, who braved the atrocious conditions and marched....even those who came only "with a sense of duty"!

What political forces were there?
Eirigi, with lots of people and a very large banner, Socialist Party Youth, Labour Youth, a number of activists from the IPSC, a number of actvists from AWI, Ciaron O'Reilly, I saw a couple from the WSM, a big banner and activists from SIPTU, 4-5 people from RAR, Lebanese, Palestinian and Afghani comrades, Sinn Fein comrades and a good group from Derry with their banners and tee-shirts...some wonderful friends from Athlone and Cork...a Green Party and a Labour Party speaker, some from the ATGWU, some from PANA, some from the NGO Alliance and the SWP with a large banner and a number of local anti-war groups, some linked to the organisers, others not. The Ballymun anti-war banner was superb. I may have missed some....
Yes, we postered and postered and postered again....the DCC employees removed about 70% of the posters, despite verbal and written assurances that there is no such policy....and notwithstanding DL's messages in another thread. We distributed about 25,000 leaflets.....

Was it worth it? Was the effort and the financial outlay worth it? Depends how you look at it. From a P v L point of view, as the 'Socialist' friend above suggests [nearly 1,000 people - nearly €3,000 spent - with masses oif voluntary labour = about a fifth came back in the collections], the investment does not seem to have produced the required return!! But then, what would that 'return' have been? 2,3, 5 or perhaps 10,000?

On the other hand, the vibrancy, the energy, the unity of purpose of those who were there, [yes some of the very same faces - the same basket cases according to our 'socialist'!] constitute the foundation, the vertebrae of the Irish anti-war movement. Realistically speaking. And, if the article in another thread, about the US preparing an attack on Iran in 4-5 weeks, is anywhere near the truth, then it is the political forces that were there yesterday that will be the mainstay of opposition.With, perhaps, a few additional forces that were absent yesterday!

Would we do it again? Yes...in Shannon as much as in Dublin...in Belfast and in Cork and in Derry and in Galway. Until this Government, or the next one after the elections, stops collaborating through the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports.

Are there alternative strategies? There may be...any suggestions?

by Stranded in Cork Sun Sep 24, 2006 21:07

What a sad commentary on this protest. There's hundreds of comments on IndyMedia/Ireland meetings and minutes, but hardly a blip on yesterday's protest.

I doubt I'm the only Indy reader who's hungry to read more details about the protest. I really wanted to go and tried hard to get to Dublin yesterday. I was counting on IndyMedia to have full coverage of the event, as has been its general practice. Maybe everyone who was there is still drying out from the rain, and hopefully someone will write a blow-by-blow account.

Many thanks to Ciaron and Arlo for what you've posted! Still, I'd like to know how the day went. Not everyone who supports the good work of the anti-war movement here in Ireland is able to get to Dublin for these protest, so just reading "same old speakers, same old speeches" doesn't mean much to those of us who rarely get to go to these protests.

I'm not trying to me rude, but other that Aengus O'Snodaigh, whose speech is on the SF website, I'm still in the dark about who spoke, who showed up, and what the atmosphere--aside from the rain--was like. Some of us in other parts of Ireland DO count on you good folks in Dublin and at IndyMedia to keep the fires aflame. Please don't extinguish that flame!

by SF watch Sun Sep 24, 2006 20:44

"yankee and Brit imperialists"

What about Irish capitalists and Irish imperialism? Does Éirigí oppose it as well? Or do you think our native brand of exploiters are 'the progressive bourgeoisie'??

by anon Sun Sep 24, 2006 19:14

Same old speakers, same old speeches. No imagination. Only attended from a sense of duty.

by Stranded in Cork Sun Sep 24, 2006 18:05

of the protest? I found no coverage in the mainstream media, and I'm eager to know who the speakers were, how the day went for those brave ones who showed up.

by Arlo Sun Sep 24, 2006 17:15

Here's some photos from the march yesterday. I was walking with the 30-40 people behind the éirígí banner. It's a pity the weather was so dire. It would have been nice to see how many people would have turned out otherwise. Fair play to everyone who did. A long way from 100,000 but at least it was a manifestation of opposition to the continued government support of the yankee and Brit imperialists.

by socialist Sun Sep 24, 2006 17:12

This was the 'biggie', the 'international day of action' that the IAWM pumped loads of money and time into. How much per person did all those glossy posters and leaflets cost? You could have had the same turnout with much less expenditure. The IAWM has always been a basket-case when it comes to stuff like this. I wouldn't want them presiding over my household bills, that's for sure!

The real problem of course is that the demo was aimless. Shannon is a pain in the arse to get to but it makes sense. I'll certainly make the trek on October 28th coz that's where the US military are actually at. Literally across the fence from the protest!

Dublin? You need a reason for a march in Dublin. A selling point. It wasn't there for this demo and, consequently, people didn't feel motivated.

Fair dues to those who turned out in shitty weather, though. Not sure what it achieved but maybe the IAWM can explain this to us?

by DM - Labour Youth Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:34

ANY PICTURES?

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker (personal capacity) Sun Sep 24, 2006 09:38

Unfortunate weather conditions for the gathering and march. Lot of great folks in attendance and a great band at the end.

Good to hear the Raytheon 9 get support. We, as a movement, have to support all nonviolent resistance to this war where ever it breaks out and from whomever it comes (within the British & U.S. military, in Iraq, catholic Workers, SWP, Republicans, hippies, punks etc). When it happens on this island we need to prioritse it - the Raytheon 9 need our proactive support as they go to trial and risk jail.This is more significant than treating the war as some kind of televised football game picking an Iraqi faction to cheerlead for from the comfort zone of our first world location.

I was disappointed that none of the speakers mentioned the presence in Ireland this weekend of the of U.S. secret service and of George Bush Sr. & Bill Clinton who faciliated the killing of over a million Iraqi chidlrenin the 12 years of their administrations. Is this a failure of speakers to be in the moment, to think laterally outside the subcultural box and connect to pop culture and to forget the past that leads us to the present so quickly. There were many mutterings among the assembled that "I hope thsweather crews their Ryder Cup", but that is as far as it went! Bill Clinton is speaking in Dublin this week for lottsa $€£ to see him and then on to address the British Labour Conference in manchester that we had assembled in reponse to!

In a limited fashion I have to raise the presence of George Sr. and Billy Bob on this site, this is my latest contribution on the link below
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78445?author_name=Ciaro...68517

Hoping to see y'all as we return to Shannon Airport with U.S. veterans of this war on Saturday October 28th. - the second anniversary of Fallujah. The departuree lounge at Shannon was the departure lounge for the death of most of the youn g Americans who have died in this war. we willalso be remembering the people they killed while in Iraq. We call upon the Ahern Government to immediately demilitarise Shannon Airport and take Ireland out of the war before the war comes home to Dublin the way it has come home to London and Madrid.