Images from IAWM National Demonstration at the Fianna fail Ard Fheis

by Paula Geraghty Sat Mar 24, 2007 19:11

(c)

Mary Coughlan sing Dylan's Blowing in The Wind

Conor Lenihan shaking Robert Ballagh's hand

by Paula Geraghty Sat Mar 24, 2007 19:16

(c)

by pat c Sat Mar 24, 2007 19:20

Great pictures Paula, The one of Robert Ballaghs as Conor Lenihan (he of the crazed eyes) forces a handshake on him is classic. I hope you manage to place it elsewhere. Very good one of RBB as well; he looks as if he's shoulder charging the cop rather than negotiating!

by Fyodor Sat Mar 24, 2007 21:25

Not as much as a mention on the main evening news tonight. RTEs position would seem to be clear as far as the IAWM is concerned in acting as state censor on behalf of the government.

I was at least expecting an add-on from a report on Berties keynote speech from FFs Ard Fheis, but nada.

Commendation to all involved

Fraternity

by guydebordisdead Sun Mar 25, 2007 21:34

I doubt rte is censoring, it's not newsworthy really. "In other news...the IAWM marched and had 14 speaches today". I'd much rather hear about the situation in Iran.

by citogk Sun Mar 25, 2007 22:51

Paula great photos as ever
And there was coverage on TV3 news and at least 20x deligates got leafleted by me as they entered by car or by foot prior to arrival of march-so the awareness is out there Shannon will be a voting issue for more people because of the demo- so despite being low key -it was a definite success

by Fyodor - Socialist Network Mon Mar 26, 2007 02:52

Not news worthy? A demonstration attented by a sitting TD and a Senator is not newsworthy? A demonstration against the single biggest act of unmitigated agression on the planet and it does not even warrant a mention by the States media organ?

This was censorship.

by DC Mon Mar 26, 2007 03:53

I understand it was a very small demonstration, attended by less than 200 people.

There was nothing unusual or news worthy in the speeches, and the demo went unnoticed by the majority of the delegates and had no effect on the Fianna Fail conference.

None of the newspapers covered it so far.

What would be newsworthy would be a story of how the IAWM went from 100,000 people on a march four years ago to what amounted to a picket of a couple of hundred. Maybe we will get that someday.

by Rumpster Mon Mar 26, 2007 08:52

What would be newsworthy is a bit of militancy (eg. a sit in on the conference floor) but SWP/IAWM have argued against such tactics, and marginalised those who went the route of NVDA ,from the get go. Note the absence of speakers from those acquitted at the Four Courts last year etc etc.This was an attempt to launch the SWP electoral campaign nothing more, nothing less. IAWM have never displayed any seriousness about engaging Irish complicity in this war. It has shrunk to a rump.

by Fintan Lane - AWI and ISN Mon Mar 26, 2007 09:39

Couldn't make it on Saturday, so thanks for the photos, Paula. Looks like a truly excellent demo.

Well done to all involved in organising this!

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:58

Thanks Paula for the great pics. And for the good words Fintan.

It was a good occasion - particularly satisfying for me was to experience the mix of Labour Party/Labour Youth activists with older anti-war activists.....the mix of older people from PANA and the NGO Alliance, and some of our older ones in the iawm, with many younger people - particularly women.
It was my job to count and I did - when we turned left onto the road to City West, I counted 286 and I know there were a few people waiting for us at the entrance.
It was also very satisfying to meet again some friends from Cosantoiri, the Unamanageables and the Green Party - reminded me of the earlier anti-war Network days. I spoke to three Polish and one Hungarian activist...there were 3 Iraquis, three Palestinians there. And a very courageous couple from Wales who had come not for the match but for the picket. A small Catalan contingent and a German comrade were there too.
Friends from Galway, from Athlone, from Cork and a couple from Sligo also added their energy and their colourful banners to the proceedings....
There were a few notable absences - but, surely, they must have been busy doing anti-war work elsewhere. The sun was shining - the match was on - that could have been a cause. Local people from the area were supportive, 3-4 of them joined us. Few events bring together comrades like David, Joe and Robert with travellers from Fortunestown.

Huge amount of work went into this - we spent a lot of money - distributed 25,000 leaflets, put up over 2,500 posters - many of them came down quiclkly but were replaced. Our work, dovetails well, methinks, with the work of Conor and Ed and Deirdre in Shannon....the anti-war movement, with all its sterngths and weakness is active and moving - that's what matters.

Now the task is to make Shannon an election issue....we have a couple of months....can we work together with all the components of the anti war movement? If we are successful, then the 100,000 plus who were in the streets four years ago may be given another chance to voice their opposition to the war, and the 'shame', as Robert Ballagh put it, in witnessing the collaboration of the FF/PD cabal with the war machine.

by DC Mon Mar 26, 2007 13:54

286 were counted. Someone else on the march estimated less than 200. But even if we accept the IAWM figure:

"There were a few notable absences"

90,714 absences.

Maybe it's time that those who have an interest in seeing an Irish govt. refuse to be complicit with the war machine daily passing through Shannon should assess whether the sheepathon tactics of the SWP have anything to do with the fact that most people DON'T see Shannon as an election issue.

The IAWM says it "distributed 25,000 leaflets, put up over 2,500 posters" but in their own figures say 286 people felt that the march would be a useful exercise.

Isn't it time to ask whether the tactic of putting up posters and marching is actually working?

Is selling papers and providing a platform for election candidates really worth it?

Or are the SWP already planning the march this time next year?

by economist Mon Mar 26, 2007 14:21

The SWP element in the IAWM have always pushed hard for expensive posters & leaflets, usually produced in their tens of thousands, regardless of whether it actually assists a mobilisation. It's a bit like the Yanks in Vietnam who couldn't stop shooting - the solution was always to lob more and more bullets & bombs at the problem.

AWI managed to get roughly the same numbers at Shannon last October with much less expenditure - most of their posters were sent out as PDFs to be run off by local groups and individuals. As far as I know only several hundred posters were actually run off by AWI themselves. Now this might seem like penny-pinching but in fact it is the targetted use of resources. In this regard the IAWM has always been an economic basket case.

Imho, the SWP always push for loads of expensive colour posters (putting the IAWM up shit creek financially) because this is about spin. It's about convincing the media and others that a "huge" movement and a "huge" mobilisation are in motion - under their political direction. It's all about projecting an image - irrespective of the reality on the ground. This is the sort of thing that mainstream parties do all the time.

The expenditure on this march was stupid. I believe the march was admirable but, speaking as somebody who has donated hundreds to the IAWM since 2001, I really wish the money was spent more wisely.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Mar 26, 2007 14:42

Dear DC,

I will not dwell on your maths - hard to fathom what your 90,xxx refers to - I suspect you wanted to say 99,000 odd. A very simple €1 calculator may help you there.

Anyway, and seriously, yes, in the iawm, we believe that having weekly stalls, distributing leaflets and talking to people in City and Town centres and in the communities, having the occasional picket and demonstration, a meeting or two or three here and there, a film show or two or three or four, putting up posters....yes, we do believe this constant work is having an effect. This is what we see as being the job and duty of a solidarity movement with those who're fighting with arms and resisting the Empire in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine and very recently in Lebanon.
And, yes, bringing up the war and Shannon as an election issue, we believe helps raise awareness, and wakes up a few sleeping giants.

Now, we also believe that putting a wreath in Shannon and remembering the Iraqi dead, visiting the airport regularly as Ed Horgan suggests (see another thread) also helps. Writing articles, having interviews on the radio and sending letters to the media is also part of the same struggle.

There are, of course, other possible methods. Other strategies and a multiform array of tactics. We work with Labour Youth, with a few comrades of the Anti War Network, we discuss other possibilities. We discuss regularly with Sinn Fein and the Green Party. We feel joy when MichaelD, in their latest publication says Shannon is an election issue.

DC,

If you have any other brilliant ideas, please regale us in the iawm and the Indymedia afficionados here in this gig. The anti-SWP line may, for you, be a diversion and a pleasurable passtime when you have little else to do but type a few 'criticisms' on your keyboard. But for most of us, non-SWP activists, this nonsense is stale news. Useless waste of time. Tell us, for example, what you, and your friends were doing on Saturday afternoon..... watching our shambolic soccer team perhaps and dreaming of NVDActions? Perhaps anything hotter and more effective? Or taking it easy after a hard week's labours?

Enlighten us.....please

by stripey Mon Mar 26, 2007 15:54

I don't have a calculator (is there one somewhere on this 'puter?) but I suspect that 99000 odd is wrong too, because that would imply that there were 1,000 people there on Saturday. I think it would be a vote of confidence in the IAWM if there had been, but there weren't.

I guess it should have been 99700 shouldn't it?

I'm also not sure if I have any brilliant ideas for how to improve the fortunes of the IAWM, but if I could make one suggestion it would be that the current chair should step aside. It's not appropriate for him to be in a position such as this while standing as a candidate in the upcoming election campaign. He's deliberately sowing confusion as to his role in the minds of many when he holds fundraisers for his election campaign and publicises them through the IAWM mailing list.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would think you could get some good publicity for the anti-war movement if he stepped down and you found another chair, perhaps someone with a high profile.

You could think aboutt doing some direct action as well, of course. I don't think you have to go to Shannon. A bucket of paint could make a big difference in the run-up to this election, and the Fianna Fáil establishment are wandering around the country, knocking on doors. But you won't get people like me involved in anything like that if it's going to be followed by a press statement from your current chair.

If I wanted to be involved in his election campaign I'd join the SWP or whatever they are calling themselves. You have a better chance of getting people involved if you aren't associated with the campaign of one candidate.

by Justin Morahan Mon Mar 26, 2007 19:12

Thanks for the work and thanks for the report and pictures. Sorry I wasn't able to be with you but you have my full support and praise.

I wouldn't worry about the negative criticism but the lack of coverage is sad. Not surprising though, seeing the Irish Times didn't print one word about the case of the victim of sex abuse on the day after the Prime Time programme highlighted it on RTE. The victim was the subject of sex abuse for which the Principal of her school is serving a sentence. Now, she being taken to the cleaners for 500,000 euro for losing her claim against the Department of Education and Science (DES) - in order to cover the DES's expenses The Irish Examiner thought it worthy of a large front-page story and an editorial but the Times left it two days and then had a mid-page "story" hidden in the middle of an inside page about Mary Hanafin's simple denial of responsibility.

It's election time and elections are a dirty game.

As for numbers, for me, one is great, two even better but 286 outside a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis is not to be sneezed at. As for the 130,000 (my own estimate) at the great march in Dublin in 2003, don't forget that some of the marchers of that day were at Saturday's Ard Fheis. And since March 2003 quite an array of people have said in my hearing that they were part of that great Dublin protest, among them Gardaí, Judges, Bishops and the prosecutors in both the Mary Kelly and Pitstop Ploughshares Trials.

In other words the 130,000 was a once-off. They were believers in the power of their anger and numbers and they included people who previously never protested for anyone but themselves. There was also a large number for whom this was their first ever protest. Incidentally the mainstream media had a day-off then as well.

The 286 on Saturday's protests are people who are committed long-term, and even when they know they are not winning they never lose hope or courage or commitment.

by MichaelY - per cap Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:17

Hi Justin,

Haven't seen you for a while. Good to read your very wise and positive comments.

To add a couple of thoughts - watching the Reverend yesterday sharing the same table as Adams brought so many images to my head. The huge H-Block marches in 1981 after Bobby Sands died for example....the masses of people, young and old, venting their anger, shouting abuse at Thatcher, many of us attacked by the Guards, guarding the British Embassy, with the Army behind them just in case. We all wanted a united Ireland, we all wanted justice, we all wanted a political system that listens to ordinary people. 25 odd years later many of those who marched are not with us anymore, many others have gone home having decided it was all a pipe dream. But there are still a few hundred of us who have not given up. The same process is taking place in the anti-war movement. The Iraqis and the Plaestinians and the Lebanese though are continuing their fight. And the Empire will be defeated - as it was defeated in Vietnam.

And that's my second point. The most poisonous piece of propaganda, the one that does penetrate into peoples hearts and minds, is the 'wise advice' of those who 'know best' that "struggle does not work"!! That whatever you do, capitalism, the system in place, or the Empire in more global terms, would win. This is why it's so crucial to do what Ulysses did in his quest for his Ithaca....to block his ears so that he could not hear the Sirens and struggle on. A great Greek poet, a Nobel laureate, called Kavafis says: When you start your travels towards your Ithaca, wish for the road to be long and arduous....for it will be only then that your trravels will bring you knowledge and adventure.

Take care Justin - fraternally

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:39 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

It is good to see a good realistic contibution from Justin. While there are a diversity of views within the broad anti war movement , the IAWM should be congratulated on organising the demonstration outside the FF Ard Fheis. FF have over the last 10 years destroyed Irish Neutrality and integrated Ireland into the US/EU miliary structures. They have re-established the Redmondite tradition of support for Home Rule within a Union. Ahern is the first nationalist leader since Redmond to actively support an Imperialist war. His decision to integrate the Irish Army into the Battle Groups of the EU is a clear signal that it is his intention to deepen Irish involvement in the resource wars that still to come, as is the Chancellor of Germany who has called for the creation of a European Army. PANA, the NGOPA , the IAWM and Labour Youth have come together within the Stop Bush Campaign in order to seek to make the war in Iraq an election issue. Since the corporate media backs Ireland's participation in the war they will not give us much if any coverage, despite the fact that an MRBI survey of the 50+ age showed the war was their major concern. We therefore need to leaflet, knock on doors etc. PANA has commissioned a market research company to independently ask the people if they support the use of Shannon in this war and we will be publishing the results in April.

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:42

MichaelY writes of the antiwar movement and what it does and then adds: "This is what we see as being the job and duty of a solidarity movement with those who're fighting WITH ARMS and resisting the Empire in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine and very recently in Lebanon." (my emphasis)

Now, forgive me, but when did the anti-war movement in Ireland transform itself into a solidarity movement working with those engaed in ARMED struggle in the Middle East?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pacifist. However, in common with many activists involved with AWI, I am extremely wary of becoming a European cheerleader for reactionary armed movements in the Middle East. Those engaged in armed struggle in Iraq, for example, range from those instincting opposing an occupation force to Islamic fundamentalists (both Sunni and Shia versions) who want a form of society that I find repulsive. Michael's support for armed struggle has become very obvious in his most recent postings on indymedia and it seems to lack any discrimination. It reeks of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle. What next? Support for the Iranian government?

Is MichaelY speaking for the IAWM on these issues? Has the IAWM reclassified itself and become a "solidarity" group primarily cheerleading ARMED struggle?

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:58

Dear left-activist,

I am not going to engage with some of what I consider to be provocative statements above. I will, instead, for info sake, outline the resolutions of the Cairo Conference last summer to which we participated as iawm. Btw, the next session of the Cairo Conference is taking place this coming weekend. Our opposition, as iawm, to the collaboration of the Irish Government with the Empire is guided by our views of our country's compromised neutrality [see Roger's message above], the democratic deficit inherent in the Coalition's decisions to support the mayhem in Iraq and in order to:

1. Develop a people's strategy in the Arab world to challenge American and Zionist occupation.

2. Work against the threats to widen the war to Iran and possibly Syria

3. Spread the culture of resistance and break the siege on the Iraqi resistance and calling on neighbouring countries to support the legitimate Iraqi resistance

4. To regard the Iraqi resistance as the sole representative of the Iraqi People, and ensure the independence and unity of Iraq

5. To Activate campaigns to assist and help the victims of the occupation and send medicine and other forms of aid and forming committees for the support of the Iraqi resistance.

6. Organise regular demonstrations and debates against the occupation of Iraq, and oppose sending any other forces to Iraq

Now, if this is called 'cheerleading', if this is unmitigated militarism in the eyes of some, if this may have the implication that we support Hezbollah in its fight against Zionism, if we salute the establishment of a Palestinian Unity Government with Ismail Haniyeh as PM.....and the worst crime of all, if it means that we will support the Iranian people and all those fighting against the Empire if Iran is attacked.....so be it. Guilty!!

For debate's sake though, I would appreciate some awi comment on the 6 points outlined above. We rehashed some of these arguments a few months ago with SP comrades when we invited a Hezbollah speaker to Ireland. AWI was quiet at that period. Just to clarify where we all stand. Not abstractions, not 'I am not a pacifist' type of talk. There are 6 clear and unambiguous resolutions. For or against dear left - activist?

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:19

MichaelY, I'm speaking for myself not for any organisation. I'm a lowly supporter of AWI not a spokesperson, which seems to be your self-adopted role on indymedia for the IAWM.

Secondly, there is no attempt provocation in what I wrote. I quoted you directly and commented. You explicitly described the anti-war movement as acting in solidarity with those engaged in armed struggle (with no qualifications made). In fact, you clearly referred to the ARMED resistance and made no mention of the ongoing mass struggle of workers on the streets. The failure to distinguish between the various factions engaged in "armed resistance" is also troubling. Some of those groups in Iraq believe in "resisting" through the deliberate targeting of Shite civilians - all Shites are collaborators etc etc.

Thirdly, I have no intention of outlining my position on "principles" adopted at the Cairo conference. I believe in class politics not in supporting every guy who waves a gun at the Yanks or Israelis.

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:37

MichaelY, if your feeling energetic, though, you might explain the phraseology of the first Cairo resolution: "a people's strategy in the Arab world"

What's a "people's strategy"???

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:44

That's what I wrote verbatim further up :".......In the iawm, we believe that having weekly stalls, distributing leaflets and talking to people in City and Town centres and in the communities, having the occasional picket and demonstration, a meeting or two or three here and there, a film show or two or three or four, putting up posters....yes, we do believe this constant work is having an effect. This is what we see as being the job and duty of a solidarity movement with those who're fighting with arms and RESISTING THE EMPIRE in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine and very recently in Lebanon. And, yes, bringing up the war and Shannon as an election issue, we believe helps raise awareness, and wakes up a few sleeping giants." The caps for your clarification and I stand fully with what I wrote.

Incidentally, the 6 points of the Cairo Conference are not 'principles'. They're political resolutions and guides for action. Please read them carefully one more time and set them against what you, personally, are doing and your politics.

The question, of course, remains: How does your belief in what you call 'class politics' translate itself in your actions re: the war? Should we or shouldn't we support the resistance in Iraq ? Or should we engage, as some do, on eclectic cherry picking of one or the other faction that fits our western conception of political correctness? ? And will you support the Iranian people if they have to fight the Empire? Please reflect and answer - don't let evasions persist.

Btw, following the last AGM, the iawm has elected three people, among them myself, and given them the responsibilty of engaging public opinion and the media. Rich and Kev are the other two - all three of us sign the Press Releases which I am sure you must have seen. So, please let go of the personal barbs re: self-appointed and the like. Very lowly tactics those that, unfortunately, cannot replace political incoherence.

by Pushkin Tue Mar 27, 2007 13:25

"Should we or shouldn't we support the resistance in Iraq ?"

The very use of the word "Resistance" is loaded. Some of the "Resistance" are Shi,ite Fundamentalists who also kill Sunnis, some are Sunni Fundamentalists who also kill Shi,ites. Some are Ba'athists who kill anyone who gets in their way or will do whatever they can to destabilise the Iraqi state not caring about how many civilians die in their bombings.

There may be some genuine resistance fighters who are not targetting civilians but I honestly don't know who they are.

No anti War group should support those who carry out Ethnic Cleansing, Sectarian Mass Murder and Indiscriminate Bombing of Civilians.

I hope thats sufficently politically coherent for you.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Mar 27, 2007 13:47

Pushkin's message requires an answer. It will be a bit long - but bear with us. The article below is from iawm's recently produced FactFile and is entitled 'Lies about Iraq'. I'll come back to the peoples strategy raised by left-activistquestion later.

Everyone now knows that the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq was based on a staggering lie that claimed the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and so posed an imminent threat to neighbouring countries and to the world. We in the anti-war movement in Ireland, and the world over, and such prominent establishment figures as Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons Inspector in Iraq, said at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
George Bush and other key figures in his administration also deliberately lied to the world by suggesting again and again that Saddam’s regime had links with Al Qaeda and was therefore, in some way, connected to the atrocities in the US on September 11 2001. Again, this lie has now been comprehensively rejected even by the US Congress. Al Qaeda had no base inside Iraq before 2003 although it does now as a result of the US led invasion.
These facts are well known. Most people accept that Bush and his cronies lied to justify a war they wanted for other reasons. Most people also accept that the promise that the US would bring democracy and liberation to the Iraqi people has failed dramatically, if they ever believed in the first place, that democratisation and liberation were the objectives of the war.
`
There is still confusion though
Despite this knowledge, however, and deep suspicion of almost any statement by the Bush administration on Iraq, there is widespread confusion on what to do now. Since the occupation of Iraq began, the anti-war movement has called for the withdrawal of the occupying forces as the only way to bring peace and self-determination to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, continued lies from the Bush and Blair administrations about the situation in Iraq has led many even of those that opposed to the war to believe that the occupation may be a necessary evil.
The new US propaganda that is used to justify the continuing occupation is, in fact, as big a lie as that about WMD. It revolves crucially around the notion that if the US and its allies pull out of Iraq, there will be a sectarian blood-bath and terrible civil war involving Sunni extremists, ex-Ba’athists and Shia fundamentalists backed by Iran. According to the new lie, it is these groups that are responsible for the continuing and terrible violence in Iraq, while US and British forces are “piggies in the middle” trying to help the majority of Iraqis reconstruct their society and establish democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A number of myths
A. The first myth in this complex new web of lies is that resistance in mostly Sunni areas to the US occupation and so-called Iraqi government results from a desperate attempt by Sunni Muslims to retain the privileges they supposedly enjoyed under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
In fact, the majority of Sunnis experienced the same oppression and tyranny under Saddam experienced by all other Iraqis. Saddam happened to be a Sunni but his regime was not a Sunni regime. It was a self-professed secular and nationalist regime that viewed political Islam with great hostility. Saddam’s cabinet included people from Sunni, Shia, Christian and Kurdish backgrounds. Its organising principle was based on demanding absolute loyalty to the Ba’ath party and to Saddam personally and it enforced this principle with ruthless brutality on any and all religious and ethnic groups in Iraq. Certainly, the Kurds in the north and Shia in the South suffered oppression and murder at Saddam’s hands when they challenged his authority but so did any Sunni that attempted the same.
Mostly Sunni Fallujah, for example,which has become a centre of resistance to the US occupation, suffered brutal punishment at the hands of Saddam when its imams refused to add Saddam’s name to the list of prophets called out from the city’s mosques at Friday prayers.
Fallujah became a centre of resistance to the occupation because of the brutality of US occupation – shooting of unarmed protesters demanding the withdrawal of US troops from a school in April 2003.
Human Rights Watch issued a report demolishing the US version that their troops were responding to shooting by protestors (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/).
A few days later a peaceful protest against these killings was itself fired upon by US troops, causing deaths and injuries among protesting civilians (http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/Fallujah.htm).
From this point on, political opposition to the US occupation by many in Fallujah turned into armed resistance.

B. A second myth fostered by the US government and its allies is that the backbone of the insurgency is carried on by foreign Al Qaeda fighters.. This is intended to destroy the legitimacy of the resistance in the eyes of Iraqis and the world. But the myth of a foreign-led insurgency by jihadists does not accord with facts on the ground.

The number of foreign insurgents in Iraq is small in number. According to the Brookings Institute, their number varies between 800 and 2,000 – and most of them have not previously been members of any Islamic militant group. Even Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, chief US military spokesman in Iraq puts the number of foreign resistance, fighters entering Iraq at no more than 50-70 a month.
According to a report by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalised almost exclusively by the coalition invasion." The report continues, “Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo also feed into the pathology."
Meanwhile, estimates of the total strength of the insurgency is put around 30,000, the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis.

C. Another myth is the assertion that the resistance is confined to Sunni supporters of the ousted Ba’athist regime. This belies the fact that a majority of Shia opposed the US occupation since at least 2004, if not before. Brookings quotes the 2006 poll conducted by “World Opinion Poll.org – PIPA. It found 61 % of all Iraqis approved of attacks on US-led forces. Among the Sunni the figure was 92 %. Among Shia the figure was 62 %. Only among the Kurds, many of whom hope the US-led occupation will deliver them autonomy, is the figure for those approving of attacks on US forces a minority at 15 %.

Political re-alignment/ the Shias and Al Sadr
Such is the pressure from mass opposition to the occupation that all the parties represented in the government (despite their frequent willingness to collaborate with the US) campaigned in the 2005 election on an anti-occupation ticket.

Part of the current offensive by the US forces involves the destruction of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which the US claim is armed and encouraged by Iran. But the truth is more complicated.
Al Sadr is the son of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and son-in-law of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir, both of whom were murdered by Saddam. The clerical family has been long associated with opposition to Saddam’s regime and paid the cost in blood. In 2004 as the US was pulverising Sunni Fallujah, Al Sadr offered important support and solidarity to besieged resistance fighters most of whom were Sunnis.
 
Al Sadr is also hostile to Iranian influence. As Patrick Cockburn commented in Counterpunch, “In spite of US efforts to link him [Al Sadr] to Iran and [most recently to] claim that he has fled there, he and his movement have traditionally been suspicious of the Iranians, and they of him.” (http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick02152007.html) Al Sadr has consistently condemned sectarian attacks on Sunnis. After a murderous sectarian attack in February this year on the Shia Golden Mosque attacks by some on Sunni mosques, Al Sadr said:
 “It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of Imam Al Hadi, God’s peace be upon him, but rather the occupation [forces] and Baathists…God damn them. We should not attack Sunni mosques. I have asked the Mahdi Army to protect both Shia and Sunni Shrines.”

US/Iraqi complicity in sectarian murders
The complicity of the US backed government of Iraq and its ministries in sectarian murder squads is widely commented on. To quote just one example, in May 2005, 15 Sunnis, including anti-occupation clerics, were taken from a mosque, murdered and their bodies dumped in Baghdad. At the funeral of one of the clerics, Hareth al-Dhari, secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said at the Umm al Qura mosque, "This is state terrorism by the Ministry of Interior."
The Muslim cleric had been taken from his mosque by uniformed troops of the Wolf Brigade, a police commando unit, accompanied by members of the Badr Brigade militia loyal to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI, the backbone of the Shi’ite coalition dominated government)
Examples like this are multiplying (see Crying Wolf: Media Disinformation and Death Squads in Occupied Iraq by Max Fuller
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context = viewArticle&code =FUL20051110&articleId=1230
The Wolf Brigade, recruited from military officers associated with Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, are said to be among the most effective units under the Iraqi government's control but are feared because of their human rights abuses.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq controls the Interior Ministry and is the senior party upon which the US occupation depends for political support. The US trains its strongmen. The Iran-trained Badr Brigade (which fought with Iran against Iraqis during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war) is the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution.

British & US shananigans
On 19 September 2005, British troops with tanks and armoured cars smashed their way into Jamiat police station in Basra, demolishing a wall and several buildings in the process. There they freed two British SAS soldiers who had been arrested earlier in a car outside the station, dressed in traditional Arab clothing and heavily armed. Between five and nine Iraqis were killed in the incident. It was claimed that explosives and remote control detonators were found in their car. Iraqis claimed that the two men were planning to set off bombs in the centre of Basra during a religious festival. Despite an Iraqi judge issuing an arrest warrant for the two men, no investigation took place as the British claimed the men were immune from Iraqi law.
Three weeks later, there was another similar incident involving Americans: A number of Iraqis apprehended two men disguised in Arab dress as they tried to blow up a booby-trapped car in the middle of a residential area in western Baghdad on Tuesday. The men were apprehended as they left their Caprice car. Local people found they looked suspicious and when they were detained it was discovered that they were Americans and called the Iraqi puppet police.

Bush cronies in charge
Looking at the record of one key player in the Iraq occupation lends weight to the allegations of Coalition complicity in the death squads. Bush crony John Negroponte with a background in intelligence and covert operations in Latin America was appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations in 2001. There he got the unanimous approval of the Security Council for a resolution demanding Saddam Hussein decommission his “Weapons of Mass Destruction”—weapons that did not exist, paving the way for the 2003 invasion. He was appointed Ambassador to Iraq (2004 - 2005), and was appointed Director of National Intelligence in February 2005.
Negroponte was from 1981 to 1985 the U.S. ambassador to Honduras under President Reagan. During this time, military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million a year, as the US stepped up its covert war against the democratically elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua. According to John MacGaffin, the CIA’s former Associate Deputy Director for clandestine operations, “Negroponte is a guy who plays hardball. He’s a man who understands the whole range of counterintelligence, intelligence and covert action. They’re all parts of foreign policy and protecting ourselves.”
(Newsweek, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6989173/site/newsweek/page/2/
These brutal covert actions by US forces (either directly or through its collaborators) have been supplemented with divide and rule tactics to exacerbate communal tensions.

Questions of oil
Meanwhile the occupying powers are manoeuvring to ensure Iraq’s potential oil wealth falls into the lap of Western multinationals. It was recently revealed by Al-Jazeera that the British government have been pushing a report by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) - a Washington-based think-tank backed by a host of multinationals, including oil companies such as Shell and BP - at Iraqi officials in Baghdad. The UK is pressurising the Iraqi government to sign long-term production-sharing agreements with British oil companies. Production-sharing agreements allow companies to make vast profits once they have recouped their costs. Greg Muttitt, an oil campaigner with Platform, said that the British government was "using their position as a military occupier to influence and shape the future of the country's economy in the interests of powerful companies".
British diplomats have been involved in "extensive efforts since at least 2004 to push for companies such as BP and Shell to receive long-term contracts, which would give them exclusive rights to extract Iraq's huge oilfields", which would exclude Iraqis..
The ITIC is organising further lobbying by oil executives with senior Iraqi government figures in the run up to hydrocarbon law due this summer to push for a lax tax regime on Western oil interests.
Al Jazeera reports: “Iraq has proven oil reserves of 115 billion barrels, with billions more thought to be as yet undiscovered, but since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq the country has been in chaos and unable to adequately exploit its own resources.
New legislation, drafted by Iraq's fledgling government, is aimed at reviving the country's oil revenues, but critics say the majority of the money will be going to multinationals.
The oil companies will operate under production sharing agreements (PSAs), long-term contracts, signed between oil companies and the nation which owns the resources. Critics say the agreements will lock Iraq into unfair arrangements at a time when Iraq is not in a position to negotiate.
Figures from the International Energy Agency show that PSAs are only used for about 12 per cent of world oil reserves and critics argue this means there must be other, fairer methods.
A 2005 study by Platform shows that not only would Iraq be likely to lose billions of $s in oil revenue under the likely terms of oil contracts, but returns for oil companies would be as much as 162 %, "far in excess of usual industry minimum targets of around 12 % return on investment". (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/601E7480-CD0D-41...F.htm)
The Iraqi Constitution, has the sell-off of national resources and privatisation virtually written in:
Article 25: The State guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with modern economic principles to ensure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources and the encouragement and the development of the private sector.
Article 26: The state guarantees the encouragement of investments in the various sectors. This will be organized by law.
Not only is the occupation of Iraq causing untold misery and stirring up sectarian conflict, the future of Iraq’s oil wealth is being prepared for a boot sale to Western oil interests. None of this would be possible but for the invasion and occupation. Foreign troops, covert operations, spooks and predatory oil interests are not saving Iraq from civil war, they are making it more likely.

We must demand that troops leave immediately.

Hope the above is of some use for Pushkin - he admitted himself there are gaps in his knowledge and we're only too happy to help fill some of the gaps.

by Pushkin Tue Mar 27, 2007 13:56

You didnt answer any of my points. I made it clear that I was aware of at least 3 major factions in the "Resistance". I never mentioned Al Qaeda.

I dont believe that you or the IAWM are unaware of the mass slaughter of civilians being carried out by the 3 major factions. Only a fool or a rogue would argue that the majority of the civilian killings are carried out by the US.

Long incoherent and internally contradictary diatribes from the IAWM are not going to browbeat anyone into silence.

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 14:12

Lots of words but I don't see the relevance to the issues raised. Your position is one of uncritical support for all those engaged in "armed resistance". I, on the other hand, in common with many who believe in class politics, see several elements of Iraqi armed resistance as deeply problematic - because of their vision for Iraqi society, their reactionary politics and because of their vicious sectarian attacks on civilians. You think all these things are just a distraction and hence we get your simplistic "are you for the resistance or against it?" non-question. Opposition to imperialism will not drive me towards cheerleading reactionary religious fanatics. But, oh, that's just "western political correctness" as far you're concerned. Pity the working class of Iraq with people like you offering "solidarity".

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Mar 27, 2007 14:32

Hey Pushkin,

Nine short minutes from the moment I posted the article above to you posting your conclusion that it is a diatribe, it is long, it's inherently contradictory and it's designed to browbeat people into silence! A world record both in speed-noticing, speed-reading and speed-typing, not to talk about speed-conclusion-formulating. Long it is, I agree, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.

Don't know if you got that far, but tell us what you know about the Wolf Brigade, the Islamic Council for the Revolution and the people who run the puppet Ministry of the Interior. How many mass murders are they responsible for? Tell us why 1.5 million Iraqis, women, men and children, are being forced to leave their homes and seek refuge in Jordan and Syria, Sunni countries I'm sure you know.....who are they fleeing from? What are they afraid of? Did you say 'ethnic cleansing'?Tell us what you know about the Minister of Health who was arrested because he was smuggling weapons and explosives in ambulances. Who was he and how he came to be a Minister? Why is the Mahdi Army the prime focus of the US 'surge'? I suspect you know very little about these matters....you're not a rogue or a fool, dear friend. These are atrributes of the iawm!! It's just that your libertarianism obscures somewhat the facts on the ground. And I'm being kind here because I know you work hard and are a good activist. Like many other anarchists...in and out of the iawm!! Lol.

You write that the word 'resistance' is loaded.....too bloody right!! 62% of the Iraqi people wanting the Crusaders to get the hell out is loaded. The Empire spending $billions and unable to beat the peoples resistance is loaded. The Zionist State being defeated by Hezbollah, a peoples movement if there was ever one, is loaded. Ask the IDF! The American people wanting their troops out is loaded. And the iawm wanting to make Shannon an election issue, I hope we agree there, is also loaded. Big time.

Fraternally

by Pushkin Tue Mar 27, 2007 14:52

I would like to hear/read the following from the IAWM:

1. An acknowledgement that Women are entitled to basic human rights and that they should not be forced to wear hijabs or veils.

2. An acknowledgement that Iraqis are entitled to live in a Secular State where no religious faction can enforce its will.

3. An acknowledgement that the Kurdish people are entitled to Self Determination.

4. A condemnation of all killing of civilians whether it be by the "Coalition", Iraqi State, Shi'ite, Sunni or the "Resistance".

5. A statement of support for those whgo oppose both the US/UK occupation AND Islamic Fundamentalists.

I won't hold my breath. More and more the IAWM/SWP are becoming nothing more than cheerleaders for mass murderers, ethnic cleansers and islamic Fundamentalists.

by Fyodor Tue Mar 27, 2007 15:07

Your 5 points are well made Pishkin, but I think perhaps we should concentrate on stopping the UK/US war machine from further plunging the region into intractable chaos. Class politics are not at the heart of the blatant sectarianism between Sunni and Shi’ite. Those issues come later when the immediate justification they use for this slaughter has been removed from Iraq, namely the illegal occupying force.

A campaign like this needs a specific focus, trying to broaden the scope of the IAWMs objective at this point would be counter productive already adding to campaign fatigue already felt by the public at large.

But you made two sweeping statements in closing, that the IAWM are a front for the SWP and that the IAWM supports ethnic cleansing (I assume by proxy is what you meant) both of which are not substantiated

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 15:16

Perhaps you should pass that advice on to MichaelY also, i.e. concentrate on doing what you can to end the US occupation and aggression without embracing murderous Islamic fundamentalism. Believe it or not, such a position is possible and has the added merit of extending real solidarity to the Iraqi people, rather than extending solidarity to right-wing paramilitary factions that are blowing them up every day.

Btw, of course the IAWM is an SWP front. MichaelY jumping up and down, making his presence felt, doesn't change anything. MichaelY is a lone individual representing no group, social force or anything in fact other than his good self. The SWPs, by contrast, have a machine that runs and controls what exists of the IAWM on the ground.

by Fyodor Tue Mar 27, 2007 15:42

I doubt very much people of the calibre of Joe Higgins and David Norris would be sucked into protest at the behest of the SWP and allow themselves become a promotional tool for SWP political objectives. I have no doubt that there are SWP members involved in IAWM but they do not control it inherently.

Look at some of the other speakers, none have an affiliation with the SWP (apart from RBB obviously). I think a broad spectrum of opinion was in attendance at that rally not just SWP members and they certainly did not steer the rally to any obviously advantage for the SWP that I could see.

(Btw, theres still a poster for the rally on the lampost on Rialto roundabout. Anyone in the IAWM reading might wanna take it down before DCC start issueing fines)

by left activist Tue Mar 27, 2007 15:54

This is too tedious to go into again but I'll give you the simple version:

1. Speakers like Higgins and Norris will speak at any anti-war event. Doesn't mean they are involved with the IAWM. In fact the Socialist Party left the IAWM some time ago, as have a number of other left-wing groups. This was because of the stranglehold that the SWP have over it. You really need to look into this a bit more. Do a search through the indymedia archive.

2. An organised group of four SWPers on the steering committee (with RBB as permanent chair) is enough to exercise control. The others are all individuals - some active, some not - who do not meet as a group. The SWP, as an organised faction, rule not just through their committee members but by virtue of the fact that any local IAWM groups (and there are hardly any) are run by local SWP activists. This is especially true outside of Dublin: Galway and Cork IAWM branches (both tiny) are just extensions of the local SWP branches. Likewise, anytime something raises the profile of the anti-war movement, local IAWM branches suddenly re-emerge - all in places that have SWP branches and the contacts are always SWP activists. Check it out.

Anyway, this has been done to death on many indy threads before. Nuff.

by anti war Tue Mar 27, 2007 16:05

Michael according to you Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Michael Jansen and as far as I know every other credible journalist reporting from Iraq is wrong. What is the fount of wisdom that you and the swp draw from that contradicts the eyewitness reports on the nature of the sectarian militias (death squads). You are denying reality or to be plain speaking about it you are lying about what is happening in Iraq.
There is a major resistance "movement" that is making the imperialist occupation of Iraq unworkable but there is also a widespread sectarian war going on that is now responsible for the majority of deaths in Iraq. Would the sectarian war be happening if the US had not invaded, no it wouldn’t. But it is now a reality that can’t be ignored or passed off as just US propaganda or US orchestrated in order to allow them to better control the country. The US invasion and occupation has unleashed the sectarian conflict but you can’t ignore its consequences.
Ethnic cleasing is a reality. Many of the millions of refugees report that they have fled the country or their homes to internal exile because of the sectarian conflict and death threats. One example if in 2003 Sunnis made up 40% of the population of Basra, now the figure is only 14%.
Some of the forces involved in this sectarian slaughter are also part of the resistance. And as you say some are part of the state forces - like the Badr Bridgade controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Some like the Mehdi army who your colleagues in the IAWM (SWP) idolise have been responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Sunnis and in driving tens of thousands of Sunnis from their homes. The political wing of the Mehdi army are also part of the state! Their leader Muqtada al Sadr and his forces are part of the government, they are the biggest Shia faction in the government. He has flitted in and out of the government and engages in anti-imperialist rhetoric and at times military actions in order to maintain his support base amongst the Shia poor. Does Muqtada al Sadr oppose the occupation, yes he does. Is this enough in of itself to warrant the support of those who oppose the war in Iraq? Does Ahmadinejad oppose US imperialism, yes he does. Should we support his dictatorship in Iran? Al Qaeda say they are opposed to US imperialism. They even claim to be fighting a global war against the US. Does your support for all of the resistance extend to them as well?
One of the aims of Bush’s surge was to take on the Mehdi Army but it hasn’t happened. Al Sadr did a deal with the US forces and they were not targeted. Al Sadr ordered the Mehdi Army to offer no resistance to the US and Iraqi troops that enter Sadr City as part of the "surge". They have done nothing to prevent the US from establishing a military base in Sadr City. Al Sadr is part of a government that is negotiating passing over the rights to Iraq’s oil to US and British multinationals. Al Sadr’s de facto colaboration with the occupation (through his involvement in the US puppet government) has led to splits in the Mehdi Army that has fractured into three distinct factions and not all of them are following Al Sadr any longer.
Should anti-war activists support Al Sadr and the Mehdi Army instead of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq also oppose the US occupation. There are differences between them but it is only by degree. Both are hoping to become either the rulers of a unified Iraq or an independent Shiite state. Both are committed to the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state. They are also closely linked to Iran, politically, religiously and financially.
By supporting these sectarian death squads (no matter who they are Sunni or Shia) your right to speak out against the war is completely undermined. You are opposed to the occupation, you are opposed to the murder of Iraqis by the imperialist armies but you support the murder of Iraqis by reactionary death squads acting on behalf of those who want to carve up Iraq for their own enrichment and to enslave the Iraqi people when the imperialist forces are driven out.
Your analysis of the situation in Iraq is superficial and frankly infantile and the IAWM’s position of supporting all of the resistance no matter what they do or what they stand for is reactionary.

by gino kenny Tue Mar 27, 2007 16:41

well done paula on the photos, you never let the side down!!!!!

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Mar 27, 2007 17:42

Your five points are well put. I forego comment on your last paragraph because you would withdraw it yourself in a more collected moment. So hold your breath for a minute and read on:

1. An acknowledgement that Women are entitled to basic human rights and that they should not be forced to wear hijabs or veils. [Absolutely no problem with one qualification - underline the word 'forced '. They could and should wear either if they so wish and should not be forced to dispose of them either by State or para-Sate organs - see the debate in the UK at the moment which has some echoes a la Myers here].

2. An acknowledgement that Iraqis are entitled to live in a Secular State where no religious faction can enforce its will. [Absolutely yes though the 'Constitution' forced by the Coalition down their throat is a full confessional and sectarian document a la Lebanon].

3. An acknowledgement that the Kurdish people are entitled to Self Determination. [Yes, absolutely, and entitled to fight, with arms if necessary, for the liberation of parts of their homeland in southeastern Turkey and northern Iran. Though first hand reports of the new Kurdish pro-US administration [see the PUK] towards their own people and left wingers in particular are very worrying indeed!]

4. A condemnation of all killing of civilians whether it be by the "Coalition", Iraqi State, Shi'ite, Sunni or the "Resistance". [Yes!]

5. A statement of support for those who oppose both the US/UK occupation AND Islamic Fundamentalists. [Yes].

Not only, yes, therefore, but I'm absolutely certain that the nine non-SWP members of the Steering Committee (out of the 12] of the iawm would have absolutely no problem and we would be unanimous with the above. To go one step further, I will test this and come back to you pushkin publicly. I will also search the opinion of the 3 [and not 4) SWP members.

by Pushkin Tue Mar 27, 2007 18:19

I see you are doing some qualifying.

Its unfortunate that the Kurds have turned to the US but I think its a case of my enemys enemy. Such thinking has been applied by Irish Nationalists as well. I'm a bit worried about how the Kurdish Government are making concessions to Islamists re Sharia "law". but Iraqi Kurdistan is a better place for women to live than to be under the thumb of psychotic Islamist militias in the south.

How many women wear the veil or Hijab by choice in Iraq? Very few I would guess. Its forced on them by Medieval Muslim Mullahs. I say aem all of the women to protect themselves. Then they would have a true choice.

In Britain I just read of an Islamic spin doctor saying how the veil brought greater equality because people were judged by what they were rather than how they looked! In the name of Multiculturalism Medieval barbarism is being forced on Muslim women in Europe. If anyone objects they are called racist. Religion is not Race. All progressives should be helping Islamic women to fight back against this barabarism.

If women make a choice then fine but lets support those who wish to stand up against the Mullahs. We have fought against the Catholic Mullahs for too long to now roll over for the Muslim mullahs.

NO gods!
NOmasters!

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Mar 27, 2007 18:57

Pushkin,

The more you write the less difference or disagreement I find in your politics and ours in the iawm. I don't see what dividxes us in this debate. On the contrary, I find a whole set of beliefs and values that are, if not identical, at the very least complimentary.

The problem, at times, arises when some activists of the anti-war movement, begin believing their virtual shibboleth, fed to them by some sectarians, that iawm=swp, if not the other way around, and then build their arguments and theories on that very creaky basis. A bit like Unionists believing that IRA=Sinn Fein and then going to town on it. It's like me believing that awi=isn + wsm or whatever you like.

You saw some of that in this thread with our left-wing activist, describing him/herself as "a lowly awi militant", and then parroting stuff he hasn't experienced but has been spoon fed to him. To describe people like GK or GC or VS or VC or AS or myself, who betwen us have 130-140 years accumulated political experience in a variety of organisations, here and abroad, as "swp tools", or "clones", or "dupes" is pointless. It shows nothing except ignorance and second - hand sectarianism. I'll tell you what - on Saturday, in the demonstration I saw two 'older' comrades, both from the DCTU, one an (ex?) anarchist, the other less so, and I was delighted they were there. Along with Robert, and David, and Joe and Roger and Mary. All of us tools? All of us clones? All of us cherleaders of fundamentalists? Or infantile reactionaries as the anonymista from the awi called us?

The anti-war movement Pushkin needs people who have experience and know what it is to fight a battle. As much as it needs younger people from all walks of life. People who know how to win. With no Gods and no masters as you say. So say all of us.

by left activist Wed Mar 28, 2007 09:31

MichaelY, I've said it already but I'll say it agaiun: I'm a supporter of AWI not a "spokesperson" or one of their "militants". Most of my activism is not anti-war activism - I multi-task - and I've plenty of experience of how the SWP operates. But that's another story.

My point here was and is very clear and you dodged, evaded and went off down bye roads. I highlighted your breathless and indiscriminate cheerleading of the "armed resistance" in the Middle East and I criticised your attempt to depict the anti-war movement here as some sort of "solidarity" group for these armed groups. My point stands for the reasons I outlined above. I have no intention of going on an anti-war march and then having somebody from the IAWM depict my attendance, and that of others, as solidarity with reactionary right-wing militias.

I support the resistance offered by workers on the streets of Iraq; I do not support people - Yanks or Islamic fundamentalists - who blow them up with bombs.

by Snowball Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:06

Nick Cohen and his ilk - All Islam bad.
IAWM and their ilk - All Islam good.

One thing they agree on is that anbody who has a nuanced view is a fellow traveller of their enemies. Crazy blinkered world view, don't you think?

by Fyodor Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:25

And is also the nature of hardline activism- any hint of progressive thinking is viewed with suspicion and crys of sell out. It is why I became estranged to Ultra Hardliners. They are intractable and can in some cases alienate everyone to the cause by their doggedness. Once the core principlces are sound, everything else flows from that.

In that light it is possible to support the IAWM and not the sectarianism of Islamic fundamentalists. It is possible to support the IAWM and not be seduced by the SWP

by Fire Door Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:53

It's a bit hard to to "support the IAWM and not be seduced b the SWP" when the IAWM chair is using the organisation to raise funds for his (SWP) election campaign.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Mar 28, 2007 13:06

The last two messages, particularly the one by Snowball, demonstrate the lengths that sectarianism can go in order to 'denigrate' what is perceived as 'political opposition'.
The iawm, of course, does not believe that everything that is done in the name of Islam is good!! As much that we don't believe that the horrors perpetrated by fundamentalist Christiandom are to be excused in any manner or form. Obviously the snowball concoction had a few deleterious substances in it.....that's the end of that.
To the multi-tasking left-wing activist a couple of questions: One, I suppose we would agree that a good percentage of those resisting the Crusaders, in a variety of forms, irrespective of confessional background, by striking, by demonstrating, by sabotage and by arms are proletarians....the term to be understood in its precise Iraqi context. They may not share our friend's "class politics" but their working class identity is not in question. As much as most Irish workers, south and especially north they don't seem to share that variant of 'class politics'. The question is: do we support them when they take action against the occupation? Yes, and if so, what are the 'limits' of our support and solidarity? Is it when they attack US and Brit soldiers or Humvees ONLY? When they attack Iraqi policemen? When they sabotage oil installations? When they fight in Fallujah and Anbar? Or is it not their actions, and the impact of those actions on the Empire, but their ideological composition which must be the criteria for our support?
The second issue is, of course, related to the criticism (or is it accusation?) that the iawm support for the Iraqi [and the Lebanese and the Palestinian] resistance is indiscriminate and blind. That we are cheerleaders for all and sundry. This is baseless and false.....but one qualification so that we dont get misunderstood: We are against cherry picking of this component and that component on the basis of ideological identification. The outcome of such a deviation is that the cherry pickers end up supporting 'the workers' which, in practice, means they support nothing and nobody. Because the real life and blood proletarians in the Middle East don't really fit western perceptions of ideological correctness.

That's the context I place the sentence " I support the resistance offered by workers on the streets of Iraq" of our left - wing activist above. So do we, so do I, but the problem is that resistance, to quote Pushkin, is "loaded". With contradictions, with shortcomings, with feelings of anger and hate"..... I read today on the Net, for example, that Iraqi policemen, of Shiite background all of them, went on the rampage and killed 60 Sunni inhabitants - including many women and kids. Now, put yourself into a position of those living in that mayhem....what would you do? What choices do you have? What should they do and what criteria are we going to use to support them or not?

I'll stop here by saying that 'supporting the workers' is a rather complex, if not problematic, attitude. We have learnt the sgnificance of that stance in Ireland during the war in the 6 Counties. Or have we? Do me a favour and ask some of the awi leading lights who were in opposing camps on that question to elaborate..

Fraternally

by Duine Wed Mar 28, 2007 13:45

maith sibh - na hagóidithe

by anti war Wed Mar 28, 2007 13:55

Michael you said:

"The question is: do we support them when they take action against the occupation? Yes, and if so, what are the 'limits' of our support and solidarity? Is it when they attack US and Brit soldiers or Humvees ONLY? When they attack Iraqi policemen? When they sabotage oil installations? When they fight in Fallujah and Anbar? Or is it not their actions, and the impact of those actions on the Empire, but their ideological composition which must be the criteria for our support?"

In the context of the examples of action that you give in that paragraph I would support all of those actions against imperialism and the pro-occupation Iraqi government. But yet we do differ. The ideology of the organisations carrying out these actions is not irrelevant. It is possible to support actions both offensive and defensive against the occupation forces while at the same time criticising
the politics of those carrying out those actions. And it is also more complex again than simply saying I support this attack on the US forces but I don’t support the politics of the organisation that carried it out.

If you were in Baghdad and not Ireland I believe this issue would be a lot clearer for you. The Mehdi Army fought a significant battle against the US forces in Fallujah that socialists and those opposed to the occupation would have supported. But I would not support the sectarian killing of Sunnis by the Mehdi Army. If I lived in Baghdad I would not support the Mehdi Army or its leader Al Sadr. This would in part be because of its sectarian campaign, its fundamentalist politics, its involvement in the puppet Iraqi government but also and as important because Al Sadr and the Mehdi Army cannot unite Shia and Sunni in a struggle against imperialism. Al Sadr’s current role is adding to the sectarian division and to the prospect of the disintegration of Iraq into three sectarian dictatorships with monumentally disastrous consequences for the Iraqi working class, hundreds of thousands who will die in the slaughter this will unleash. How can you seriously say that you uncritically support this organisation.

It is wrong to speak of a "resistance movement" because there is no united resistance movement it is made up of many different groups carrying out different campaigns with different goals and aims, some even in opposition to each other. The anti-war movement (this is a misnomer as well as no movement exists in Ireland) should support the right of the Iraqi people to resist the occupation but it should also speak out against the sectarian war and criticise those engaged in it. We should also call for a united democratic resistance movement based on the working class and controlled by the working class that can unite Sunni, Shia, Kurd and Turkomen that can fight a war to drive imperialism out of Iraq and at one and the same time provide protection and defence for the working class from the sectarian militias who are slaughering them.

Your support of blanket uncritical support is out of touch with reality.

by iawm - Just received Wed Mar 28, 2007 14:54

My apologies that I can not be there but I would like to assure everyone that the anti-war movement has my continued support.

If we are ever to achieve a peaceful world, then opposition to war, violence and human rights abuse should be the basic principle adhered to by all political parties.

Military industries and arms manufactures are really the only beneficiaries of war with the losers being innocent men, women and children who have little or no control over the violence waged upon them from afar.

The Iraq war is a good example of this with defence spending soaring to its highest level since World War Two. The Iraq conflict that President Bush’s aides once said would all but pay for itself with oil revenues is fuelling the highest level of defence spending since World War II.

The Irish Government’s failure to oppose this unjust and illegal war has left this country complicit not just the illegal invasion of Iraq itself but also in the gross human rights abuses that have taken place since. These include the extraordinary renditions and the blatant abuse of prisoners in U.S. and British controlled jails, the most recent of which cases were exposed on BBC’s Panorama. But even at this late stage in the day Ireland and the Fianna Fail leaders can, to a certain extent, redeem themselves by withdrawing support and facilities to the U.S. military.

Its fitting that this event is taking place today outside the Fianna Fail Ard Fheis. I hope it brings home to the leaders of Fianna Fail that opposition to war and violence is not going to go away and Irish people will continue to fight against the inevitable injustice and brutal destruction of human life that comes with war. I would urge the leaders of Fianna Fail to reconsider their position and take the necessary steps to rebuild public confidence in the belief that they are still a party that rejects violence and still believes in the peaceful resolution of international disputes in the same way as there forefathers did. Honourable members such as the late Frank Aiken put Ireland on the international stage as a country that opposed war and oppression and used its energies to fight against weapons of mass destruction. The Non Proliferation Treaty is testament to their efforts to rid the world of such weapons. What would Mr. Aiken say now if he could see the position adopted by the current Fianna Fail leaders?

Many of those 100,000 people who marched the streets of Dublin in opposition to the war were and still are supporters of Fianna Fail but their faith in the leadership position on this issue has been fundamentally damaged.

Patricia

by tom eile Wed Mar 28, 2007 15:14

I haven't got my calculator with me but I'd say that twelve goes into 280 about twenty times. So that means that ,after thousands of leaflets and posters were produced and stalls manned the length and breadth of the country for weeks in preparation , for every member of the steering committee at the march twenty other people showed up.
At a time when the US and Britain are actively stoking the fires for war with Iran ,the IAWM are trying to say that this sort of a turn-out is perfectly acceptable.It's no wonder people don't show up at their demos any more.

by err... Wed Mar 28, 2007 15:16

Whatever about FF redeeming themselves, did Patricia give you permission to post her mobile phone number on the internet? Lotta weirdos out there.

by Kieran O'Sullivan - IAWM Wed Mar 28, 2007 16:49

I talked to RTE and the woman I talked to me explained that they had a "shell to see" protest in their diary that day and they talked to the Shell to See people but they didn't know about the Anti-War Demo. I was told that the guards had informed RTE that the protest was very small. The person in question assured me that there was no attempt to slight the IAWM they just got their protests mixed up.

This sounds reasonable to me.

On the comments about NVDA, we have had CW speakers at other marches/pickets. I was one of the people who argued against blockading the FF Ard Fheis. I did it because I did not believe that we had the right to prevent people attending a political meeting.

To those who disagree with this I would ask where were you? If an activist believes in a certain course of action e.g. NVDA then it is up to them to organize that action, If someone wanted to disrupt Berties speech then go and do it! That would probably mean joining FF. One example is the Raytheon 9 they wanted to do an action around Raytheon so the organized a meeting and got people to do it. It is really that simple hold a meeting and put a motion to the flour. Have a little confidence in your ideas there is no point simply complaining that the IAWM isn't doing what you wan them to do.

As for the complaints about Richard well I don't see any conflict between running for election and being the chair of the IAWM. He has consistently called for US Military out of Shannon.

by browser Wed Mar 28, 2007 16:57

MichaelY: "Btw, following the last AGM, the iawm has elected three people, among them myself, and given them the responsibilty of engaging public opinion and the media. Rich and Kev are the other two"

That would be Richard Boyd Barret (SWP), Kevin Wingfield (SWP) and Michael Youlton (ahem!)

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Mar 28, 2007 17:49

Hey browser

You know those of us who're not in the SWP have no sense of humour! What's the hidden message in the brackets after my name? Tried hard but it makes, as usual, no sense at all!! Why don't you read Kieran's message and, if you have to respond, say something meaningful.

by anti war Wed Mar 28, 2007 18:59

I am interested to know why you have ignored all of my postings directed towards yourself? Is it because you are unable to reply or maybe you agree with what I have said.

by tom eile Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:26

Kieron ,you write that Richard has consistently called for US Military out of Shannon .That’s very decent of him, but why can't the IAWM bring itself to make Ireland's complicity in Bush's war and its threat of war against Iran the number one issue for this year's election? The IAWN was set up to oppose war yet the best it can come out with is on its website is 'Make the war an election issue ' .

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 15:03

Tom,

Take 5 mins and check the debate going on in another thread in this gig about Iran and the female Brit crusader arrested with her mates. It may give you some idea of what our position in the iawm is about Iran and the threat of war.

by Anti-War but see no pint in going to marches anymore Thu Mar 29, 2007 15:12

Speech after speech after speech.
The annual walkabout for hte lobbyist anti-war movement.
Whats the exact purpose of it?Didnt get any media whatsoever apart from Indy
and made no impressio Id imagine on any of the gatheed Fianna Failures.
Instead of mobilising 300 people to stand around and scratch their arses while
getting preached at,why not utilise these good people to target the only facet of the war
on terror we can really have an effect on-the refuelling at Shannon.
It is only through civil disobedience and direct action at Shannon that sufficient attention
will be drawn to the issue and possible change in our foreign policy have any chance whatsoevr of resulting.
Its no wonder the glory day of Feb 15th 2003 didnt worry the government,they new that the IAWM
would continue on a mundane strategy of walkabout after walkabout,and that this would result in a winddown in numbers and interest,as has happened.
People want to feel like theyre making a difference when they go out on a protest,not merely falling into line and then getting lectured by good-intentioned but repretitive speakers preaching to the converted.
25 people blockading on the runway at shannon airport is worth so much more than 300
people standing around in the sun at Citywest.
Sure,it isnt going to stop the war,but it stands a much better chance of inspiring more to get involved in
attempting to do so,rather that the opposite which is what has happened as the years of monotonous and predictable marches have passed by.

by Kieran O'Sullivan - IAWM Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:49

As I said in my previous post if you want to get 25 people to occupy the Shannon airport you need to do the following:

1. Organize a meeting and put your proposal to the floor.
2. If the meeting approves of the action get 25 like minded people together.
3. Hire a bus/get the train/drive down/fly down/etc.
4. Arrive at Shannon.
5. Get Past the fence.
6. Occupy the runway.

NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU!

It is really that simple, the IAWM will be happy to put your meeting up on our web site and inform our members. I’m sure we can also get you the name of printers who will do you a reasonable deal on posters/leaflets.

by tom eile Sat Mar 31, 2007 15:52

Michael , I have checked that link and I think your assessment is about right. Why isn't the IAWM urging supporters to make the threat of war and the use of Shannon the central issue in the elections then ? I can understand that a political party might want to make alliances to maximize their vote in the elections -as the SWP for example are doing . Their paper this week also carries the slogan "make the war an election issue" on their front page. In my view this puts the possible extinction of human life on the planet on the same level as the threat to Dun Laoghireswimming pool . I can understand it coming from a political party , but not from a group that is specifially set up to oppose war.

by Nick Folley - None Wed Apr 04, 2007 00:22

"I talked to RTE and the woman I talked to me explained that they had a "shell to see" protest in their diary that day and they talked to the Shell to See people but they didn't know about the Anti-War Demo. I was told that the guards had informed RTE that the protest was very small. The person in question assured me that there was no attempt to slight the IAWM they just got their protests mixed up.

This sounds reasonable to me"

Maybe, but I gather RTE were in the area to cover the FF Ard Fheis anyway, so why didn't they pick up on the protest? And why isn't there some PR person from the anti-war movements contacting RTE to let them know a protest is planned, so they can't say they didn't know? (perhaps there is already, if so, I stand corrected, but then why isn't RTE covering it, even as an add-on to the Ard Fheis?)

by Tadhg Wed Apr 04, 2007 00:44

It's "Shell to Sea".

Shell to See would be something else entirely.

I don't think they covered us either, but it's nice to know we were in the diary.