Photos from anti war protest outside FF Ard Fheis

by Sarah Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19

There was a diverse crowd of protestors with anti war activists travelling from Cork, Galway, Limerick, Tullamore, Sligo.

Robert Ballagh

Joe Higgins

U.S. Military out of Shannon

Labour Youth

by Anti-War but not arsed marching anymore Thu Mar 29, 2007 15:00

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 Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:54

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 Trotwatch Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:07

The iawm will not support DA. They will denounce it as RBB and the other iawm hacks have done in the past. Maybe you are ignorant of the iawms history. Or maybe you are a spindoctor. I suggest you do a search on the Indymedia archives to find out why so many people left or were expelled from the iawm.

The swp are just using the iawm to boost RBBs profile in the hope that he will be elected to the Dail. It shows what contempt the swp/iawm have for genuine anti war activists.

by Don - member of neither but go to events of both Thu Mar 29, 2007 22:55

I've heard that the IAWM hasn't expelled anyone but that 2 members of the IAWM steering committee were suspended at some stage for being consistently disruptive. Apparently, some members of the committee were canvassed about how they were going to vote and others weren't. Because of the way all this was done other members of the committee decided to leave in protest - some subsequently went on to set up AWI. From what I've been told by one side the two people suspended were constantly abusive and doubts were expressed about their psychological stability and commitment to building an anti-war movement. The other side has said that they should still have been entitled to due process. But again I suppose the first side would argue that they had too much to do without becoming tied down over organisational matters.

Also, according to what I've heard, the handling of the suspensions prompted three branches of the IAWM to disaffiliate - but some say - one Dublin-based branch was kind of doing its own thing anyway, and the other outside Dublin branches probably wanted to part company with the wider organisation anyway and this provided good cover.

So, the story goes - the remaining IAWM sc members, although sad to part company with a small number of decent and hardworking activists - and probably relatively happy to see the back of what they have called the "two head-the-balls" - were fairly non plussed in general about the whole thing.

And there are still others who argue that it was a good thing; that it made sense to have two separate wings of a movement - one focussed on reaching out to as many people as possible to raise awareness of the war in the hope of building mass opposition, the other on more immediate direct action at Shannon in the hope that that would inspire mass numbers into mass direct action.

Anyway neither method has so far succeeded and one must wonder whether it is better to quip about who did what on this site or to refocus efforts, get involved with one network or the other - or maybe even find something new. It seems like the committee members of both IAWM and AWI can put all this behind them, publicise each others events and occasionally even host joint initiatives. Probably best for the rest of us to do something proactive and creative and let go of all the negativity. We weren't there, we don't know what happened, and we really have more important things to do than engage in this petty bickering.

by anti-war Thu Mar 29, 2007 23:27

Most of the above is fairly accurate but for the slight leaning towards IAWM spin.

1. The idea that a "small number" of people left in early 2004 is nonsense. A lot of people left and the IAWM was further weakened by a general downturn in anti-war activity. In total, six people left the steering committee including the PRO, Fintan Lane.

2. You characterise the "two wings" (IAWM & AWI) in the following terms: "one focussed on reaching out to as many people as possible to raise awareness of the war in the hope of building mass opposition, the other on more immediate direct action at Shannon in the hope that that would inspire mass numbers into mass direct action." Now, presumably IAWM is meant to be the former and AWI the latter. Unfortunately, this is IAWM misinformation that has been repeatedly put out since AWI was formed. In reality, AWI is also "focused on reaching out to as many people as posssible...in the hope of building mass opposition". AWI has organised and built mass demonstrations (twice in Shannon and also in Cork city) and has also mounted pickets and other forms of protest. Yes, it simultaneously advocates mass civil disobedience and direct action, but that is not all it does. From the outset, there has been a concerted effort by some people in the IAWM to characterise themselves as advocates of inclusive mass action and AWI as headbangers who can't think beyond direct action. The truth is far removed from this misleading nonsense. AWI believes strongly in mass mobilisations.

3. AWI was initiated by people who left the IAWM in 2004 but it is a much different organisation now. Most members were probably never in the IAWM and at least one, Colin Coulter (once treasurer of the IAWM), remained in the IAWM for some time after the split in early 2004. So, things have moved on considerably. This partly explains the bewilderment felt by many AWI members when misinformed people suggest that they are 'splitters' from the IAWM!

My own feeling is that the political and tactical outlook of both groups may differ but cooperation is strong. Certainly both groups now seem to advertise each others events and there is much goodwill. This is as it should be.

by another update Thu Mar 29, 2007 23:53

Those who left the IAWM steering committee in early 2004 were Kirsten Foy, Harry Browne, Fintan Lane, Tim Hourigan, Laurence Vize and Mick O'Sullivan.

Foy was the first to go, apparently fed up with the way things were going. Herself and Mick O'Sullivan seem to have drifted out of anti-war activism. It was O'Sullivan and Vize who were 'suspended' (in practice expelled) in a very sneaky manouvere organised by the SWP.

Fintan Lane and Harry Browne are now in Anti-War Ireland. Oddly, so too is Colin Coulter, who was the treasurer and a member of the IAWM steering committee at the time of the resignations.

Laurence Vize and Tim Hourigan are both connected with Cosantoiri Siochana.

So there...isn't that interesting?

by no names Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:01

I really don't think you should name people on public sites without talking to them first. That aside, you're information is slightly inaccurate. One person, who I won't name, had left in practice long before the suspensions and wasn't involved in IAWM in any manner for many many months beforehand.

by johnboy Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:04

Don doesn't just give an "IAWM spin", it's complete revisionism of what happened within the IAWM in 2003 and 2004, designed to make it seem like a minor division that occurred because of a squabble on the Steering Committee (SC). This is completely untrue; in fact, the expulsion of two Fairview Against the War members of the SC (both vocal opponents of the SWP) was the culmination of months of internal disputes about the direction of the anti-war movement.

Vize and O'Sullivan, by the way, WERE expelled not "suspended". Their so-called suspension was to last until AFTER the following AGM, so the intention was to unseat them before the suspension was lifted.

The split in the IAWM really began in 2003 when many activists throughout the country indicated their dissatisfaction with the tactics and strategy of the IAWM SC and, in particular, with the role played by the SWP. A downturn in anti-war activity occurred from about May 2003 onwards but there were still many active groups at the end of the summer when the 2003 AGM was held. This was a noisy affair with a clear majority of those present against the outgoing SC and demanding change; there were a variety of issues involved, among them dissatisfaction with the failure to focus on Shannon, to engage seriously in mass civil disobedience once the war began and also an annoyance that Mary Kelly and the Pit Stop Ploughshares were receiving minimal support. Other issues were also involved. Behind all this though burned an antipathy to the SWP and the "leadership" it was giving the IAWM. It was felt by many that they were running the IAWM in line with their own needs and party strategy.

As it happened, there were very SWPers at the AGM: they had moved on during the summer when the downturn occurred in the movement and, bizarrely, they hadn't anticipated the anger that would be present at the AGM. As a result, when names were put forward the election to the incoming SC, it was obvious the SWPers (Boyd Barrett, Ni Fheargail and Allen) were in real danger of not being elected. How was this resolved? The SWP proposed that ALL candidates for the SC should be accepted onto the SC without the need for a vote. A neat trick that saved the day for them in what otherwise could have been a fullscale rout.

However, accepting all the candidates also meant accepting the two Fairview members Vize and O'Sullivan (who hated the SWP and its behaviour) and prominent anti-war activists from outside Dublin, in particular Tim Hourigan of Limerick and Fintan Lane, who was chairperson of the very active Cork Anti-War Campaign. This set the scene for bitter argument at SC meetings about matters of strategy and tactics.

In fact, at the very first meeting of the new SC, Fintan Lane proposed that the next demonstration at Shannon should be a "mass blockade" rather than a march, as all marches in Shannon were by then being safely corralled in pens away from the terminal. This proposal was bitterly opposed by the SWP but they lost the vote. A blockade was agreed. The SWP were fuming over this and spent the following period working to undermine the Shannon demonstration - there was a big focus put on stewarding etc etc. In any case, there were now two very opposed factions on the SC.

Lane was in jail by the time the blockade actually happened in December. His jailing was viewed with relief by the SWP faction and they were visibly pleased that he was out of the way. In fact, the complete lack of solidarity from RBB and the SWP element was obvious from the outset and the IAWM, now largely back under SWP control, did almost no support work during the two months he was in Limerick. The Cork-based support group had to prise a statement of support from RBB. This was a truly disgraceful episode.

Meanwhile the fighting went on within the SC with Vize and O'Sullivan being particularly aggressive - O'Sullivan used expletives the way other people breathe. A poisonous atmosphere had developed by early 2004.

To re-assert their control, RBB and the SWP called a 'national meeting' at the beginning of the year. This was an incredible meeting, not because of the open nature of the dispute but because the SWP openly stuffed the meeting with 'delegates' from non-existent Dublin branches of the IAWM. The SWP virtually bussed in bogus delegates to gain a majority at the meeting. Using this false majority they pushed through a decision to orientate the IAWM away from demonstrations in Shannon., i.e. no demos at Shannon, Dublin was better. Bush's arrival in Ireland was to be met by a demo in Dublin not in Shannon (where he was landing). Fintan Lane, then out of jail, argued strongly for the main demonstration to be held at Shannon, partly because of the need to focus the public on Irish complicity there but also because that was where Bush was likely to land. Regardless, the SWP stuffed meeting opted to shift the focus from Shannon.

Shortly after this meeting (feeling more secure in their position), the SWP organised an ambush of Vize and O'Sullivan who they hated. Knowing that Fintan Lane, Tim Hourigan and Harry Browne would be absent from a particular SC meeting, they phoned around their supporters on the SC and ensured that they were present for a move against Vize and O'Sullivan. No motion for suspension was put on the agenda that was circulated beforehand; instead, the two turned up to be confronted with a surprise motion, suspending them from the SC until after the next AGM. Mayhem ensued and they were duly suspended.

That was the straw that broke the back of the IAWM. Lane, who was PRO, quickly resigned in protest, as did Hourigan and Browne. Groups also disaffiliated around the country. There was much bad blood.

Anti-War Ireland (AWI) was formed at a later stage by many of those who resigned and disaffiliated. In fact, AWI initially was mostly focused on the impending visit of George W. Bush and on the need to meet him at Shannon with a large demonstration. This what happened. When Bush landed, outside the airport gates was a large AWI demo. If AWI hadn't organised this, he would have seen no anti-war demonstration as he landed at Shannon warport. The SWP-led IAWM also realised that some Clare demonstrations were necessary (as Bush was staying in Clare!), so they had a demo at Dromoland, followed the next day by a demo at Shannon. Considering the way in which they had opposed further demos at Shannon, this was an interesting development that showed how out of touch they had been.

In fact, the really big divide between those that left and the SWP revolved around Shannon and the SWP's lack of interest in focusing on it as the central issue for the anti-war movement in Ireland. The SWP wanted to talk about the "bigger issues" (US imperialism in the Middle East) in an abstract propagandist manner, while building big marches in Dublin "against the war", while Lane, Hourigan and those that went on to form AWI believed that you fight where you stand, that the primary focus had to be on Shannon and ending Irish complicity.

Interestingly, the IAWM eventually came around to that position, but long after the anti-war movement had entered a downward spiral.

Anyway, that's the history of the 2004 split as I know it. It does seem that things have moved on quite a bit since then. The composition of AWI is different and the IAWM SC has a few new faces. RBB is still chair of the IAWM, of course, and the SWP still have a grip but even their attitude to Shannon has shifted somewhat. Both the AWI and IAWM are fairly small groups now, reflecting a continued downturn in anti-war activity in Ireland.

Let's hope cooperation between the two groups continues to develop. Iran might be next on Bush's agenda.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:16

Now that our accounts with the recent history of the iawm, and the awi, and Cosantoiri up to a point, have been successfully settled by the learned contributions above, can I suggest a couple of things, one practical and immediate while the second of a slightly longer term:

1. There is a good possibility that Cindy Sheehan, who sent us an excellent solidarity message for last Saturday's picket, may visit us here in Ireland during May. Activists will remember she was here in December '05 and spoke in Dublin - she was also received by Dermot Ahern etc. She has a very high public profile not only in the US but now internationally.

Now, do people think it would be a good idea for the entire anti-war movement, all of us together, to organise a very large public debate, or two or three, with Cindy, a high prfile person from the UK, and a couple of us here in Ireland on the one side, and pro-war components on the other, including a rep from the US Embassy and some media people on the Iraq War ? I have put this proposal to the iawm's next SC meeting but I don't think anybody there would get very upset if the proposal was taken by all of us together! Especially as relations between the iawm and the awi are said to be quite warm at the moment [see messages above].

2. If this initiative is successful, and if the work we intend to put in for the war to become an election issue brings good results (two very large 'if's), it may be a good idea to organise a post - election pre-summer full day Conference, open to all to discuss and debate where the anti-war movement is going....particularly as the Empire's plans re:Iran are beginning to look very menacing indeed.

It is important to point out that both proposals above are my own and personal - they have not, as yet, been discussed within the iawm or anywhere else. They need reflection and fleshing out. But I am encouraged by some recent signs of contradictions thawing out and a very comradely and constructive debate that is going on at the moment both in this but also the 'Iran' thread.

To conclude, here's a quote from an old comrade, Mario Silva, who died at the end of last year in the US......it reflects very accurately how many of us are feeling at the moment:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

by anon Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:09

I think the (understandable) bitterness that was there in 2004 is gone now, which is great. Political differences do exist, though. For instance, AWI are clearly opposed to the "enemy's enemy is my friend" doctrine and openly condemn Islamic fundamentalism. MichaelY and the IAWM have a different view that amounts to unconditional support for armed "resistance" groups.

The differences, however, should not stop the anti-war organisations from working together for major events. I guess it would be strange if there weren't differences. Diversity of opinion and all that.

by jay Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:31

when one of the biggest events of the year for the labour youth/SWP/Socialists etc. is to protest at Fianna Fail's biggest event of the year.

by A Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:37

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

You have to seriously reflect on what happened to the few people in Ireland that put their bodies "on the wheels "of the war machine in the lead up and the prosecution of this war. How much proactive solidarity did they receive from the IAWM, AWI, irish left or libertarian scene? if your answer is "not much", how can you expect others to take such risks in an environment of left sectarianism, opportunism, pettiness and leaving direct actionists hung out to dry?

Maybe you could ask Cindy Sheehan, she is no stranger to arrests, the courts etc since being involved in many acts of nonviolent direct action since the death of her son after he passed through Shannon.

by antiwar Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:46

Well, actually, AWI has quite a good reputation for supporting direct actionists and those before the courts. In fact, Deirdre Clancy, one of the Pitstop Ploughshares, is a prominent member and others, such as Fintan Lane, have gone to jail over the war. The problem at the moment is not about solidarity with direct actionists but about too few people willing to engage in direct action. Mind you, the anti-war movement in Ireland has never exactly had mobs of people willing to risk going to jail. A lot of the talk of 'direct action' has been rhetorical imho.

by er Sat Mar 31, 2007 17:54

not sure what makes you think that protesting at the FF ard fheis was the biggest event of the year for the orgs you named.

connolly festival, marxism 2007 - case in point?

by simple person Sun Apr 01, 2007 20:32

The detailed acount of the iawm split published above misses out on one key element - power. The swp had been the prime movers in establishing the iawm and under no circumstances were they willing to let it slip from their control. The sp had the bin charges campaign; the swp needed the anti-war movement to give them credibility. A lot of their shite in 2003 and 2004 was simply about 'power' - about maintaining control of the iawm in order to squeeze what they could from it for party-building purposes. The anti-war movement was another wave to ride in their never-ending recruitment drive.

by T Mon Apr 02, 2007 08:44

I think he meant something that surpassed yet another subcultural talking shop, an instant where power was confronted etc